IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2884 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------- OS.1778/2004 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ T.CHANDRIKA, D/O.THANKAMMA, LEKSHMI, THAMALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 12. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- S.PRADEEP, T.C.43/486, PRASANTH, MUTTATHARA, VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 2884 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the I Addl. Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram passed in I.A.6062/05 in O.S.1778/04. The defendant in the suit filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree as I.A.6062/05 in O.S.1778/04. The exparte order was set aside on condition that an amount of Rs.1,200/- is paid as costs on or before 27.7.05. Obviously it is only a mistake because the order is passed on 3.8.05 and therefore it can be only 27.8.05 and not 27.7.05. The writ petitioner filed a petition within the stipulated time, i.e. 25.8.05 for granting extension of time for making payment. It was not allowed by the Court, against that CMA 10/06 was filed which also ended in an order of dismissal on the ground that appeal is not maintainable and only a revision will lie. 2. Now, the question to be considered is whether the Court can extend the time and whether there are reasons for W.P.C 2884 OF 2008 -:2:- the same. It can be seen from the conduct of the petitioner that she had moved the Court for extension of time well in advance, i.e., 25.8.05 before the date fixed by the Court. It is also averred in the petition that as she was laid up she was not able to get the money for the purpose of depositing. One cannot hold that she was totally negligent or had willfully not paid the amount. Under the circumstances the Court should have exercised his judicial discretion in favour of the writ petitioner and allowed the payment of costs. Therefore the orders under challenge are set aside and the application I.A.6062/05 is allowed and the writ petitioner herein is permitted to pay the costs of Rs.1,200/- on or before 15.2.2008 and on such payment the Court below is directed to set aside the exparte decree, restore the suit and after giving sufficient opportunities to both the sides dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-