IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 281 of 2009() --------------------- CMA.57/2007 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD IA.1286/2006 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM (OS 49 2000) .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S):APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KALIYAMMAL, W/O.JAYADEVA KOUNDER, AGED 68 YEARS, PARAPPANTHARA, AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. PAZHANI SWAMY, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KALIYAMMAL, --DO--. --DO.... BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, MR.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.V.BALASUBRAMANIYAN, S/O.VENKTARAMAN CHETTIAR, KARUVADAM, AGALI DESOM, AGALI VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, MR.R.SREEHARI. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1060/2009 IN CRP.NO.281/2009 DISMISSED 21/08/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.281 OF 2009 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 O R D E R Revision is filed against the judgment dated 6.11.2008 in C.M.A.No.57 of 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Palakkad. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottapalam. The above suit was one for money based on a promissory note, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Suit was decreed ex parte. Petitioners/defendants moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge holding that sufficient cause has not been made out for their nonappearance on the hearing date of the suit. Against that order, they preferred C.M.Appeal before the District Court, Palakkad. The appeal was also dismissed. Propriety and correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in dismissing that appeal, is challenged CRP.281/09 2 in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The revision was admitted subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/- before the court below towards the decree debt covered by the ex parte decree, and that has not been complied with. From the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and also perusing the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in the appeal, I find no reason to hold that the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the court when the case was taken up for trial. It is also reported that the decree has been executed and the sale over the property of the petitioners/defendants has also been confirmed. No circumstance whatsoever to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge confirming the order of the learned Sub Judge that the petitioners/defendants have not made out sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree, has been presented before me to interfere with the orders/judgments of the court below exercising of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision lacks CRP.281/09 3 merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp