IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 FAO.No. 2 of 2011 ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2010 IN IA.12/2010 IN OS.198/2008 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER (S):PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ R.S.AJITH KUMAR,S/O.SELVANOSE, AGED 39 YEARS,SREENILAYAM,VELIYANNOOR.P.O, VELLANAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- BEATE ELIZABETH KOELLEN SCHARTENBERG, D/O.HANS KOWLLEN LEKSTATTSR.19,80469,MUNCHEN, GERMANY AND NOW RESIDING T MUVACAUDU LANE-76.2613(7), ANAYARA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. SRI.P.GOVIND THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ F.A.O.No.2 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This appeal is filed against the order in I.A.No.12/2010 in O.S.No.198/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangad. I.A.No.12/2010 was filed for setting aside the exparte decree. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent for realization of money and for mandatory injunction. The case of the appellant/petitioner is as follows: The respondent, a German lady could not understand the questions put in English on complicated matters and two witnesses in the witness schedule of the petitioner are also from Germany. The appellant filed petition for getting assistance from an Interpreter. He proposed a panel of Interpreters on 28.7.2009. After several postings and detailed hearing the Court allowed the petition on 10.11.2009 and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/- as batta which he deposited on 24.11.2009. Petitioner filed a schedule of 13 witnesses and 16 documents on 24.11.2009. On 2.12.2009, he FAO 2/2011 -2- filed a petition for framing additional 4 issues. The suit was posted for published list for trial on 7.12.2009. On the said day the Court allowed petition for framing of additional 3 issues. But, the Interpreter was not available on that day due to fault in service of notice. Counsel for the petitioner prayed for a breathing time for serving notice to the Interpreter. But, the Court adjourned the case to the next day. On 8.12.2009 the appellant filed a Transfer Petition before the District Court. When the case was called on 8.12.2009, the plaintiff appeared and the defendant was absent. Accordingly, the Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 14.12.2009. The Court has found that it is not an exparte decree. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the matter need not be kept pending here even though he disputes the allegations raised in the application and in the appeal and he would submit that the respondent has no objection in giving opportunity provided the adjudication is completed within a stipulated time. We would think that the impugned order can be interfered with and an opportunity can be given to the parties to FAO 2/2011 -3- establish their case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. I.A.No.12/2010 will stand allowed. The exparte decree shall stand set aside and the suit will be restored. We further direct that the Sub Judge, Nedumangad will finally dispose of O.S.No.198/2008 by 31.10.2011. The interim order of attachment will stand revived. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS