IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 195 of 2007() ------------------------------- CMA.30/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.248/1979 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL (IA 2270/97) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, PULLUVILA VEEDU, NANDHAIVANAM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, ALTHARAMOODU P.O. 2. VELUKUTTY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.RASMAN, KATTIL CHARUVILA VEEDU, THANNIKONAM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE. 3. BHASKARAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KATTIL CHARUVILA VEEDU, THANNIKONAM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.SIBY MATHEW MR.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. RADHA, D/O.NEELAMBI, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTUMUKKU PANAYIL VEEDU, MUTHUVILA KALLARA VILLAGE. 2. CHANTHIRAN CHELLAMMA, AGED 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.54, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, PACHA, PALODU. 3. CHANTHIRAN SUKUMARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.54, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, PACHA, PALODU. 4. CHELLAMMA GOWRI, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.54, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, PACHA, PALODU. C.R.P. NO.195/2007 5. CHELLAMMA VASANTHI, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.54, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, PACHA, PALODU. 6. CHELLAMMA INDIRA, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.54, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, PACHA, PALODU. 7. BABU CALLED AS PODIYAN, S/O.CHANTHIRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.54, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, PACHA, PALODU. 8. CHELLAMMA CHAKKI, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.54, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, PACHA, PALODU. 9. CHANTHIRAN GOPALAN, AGED 51 YEARS, UNNIVILASAM, KODUVAZHANOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE. R1 TO R9 ADV. MR.M.DINESH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- C.R.P.No.195 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the defendants 5 to 7 in O.S. 248/79, which is a suit for partition. Preliminary decree was passed on 15.2.1982 and the final decree on 13.3.1986. The plaintiff's share of property was delivered on 29.8.1991. Thereafter the petitioners filed I.A.2270/97 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the exparte decree passed. The averments of the petitioner were: The first petitioner was working in Kallumpara Estate. 2nd petitioner was in Thrissur and the 3rd petitioner was residing with first and second petitioners. They are not residing in the address in which summons were served. Therefore they were unaware of the suit. They came to know about the suit only on 2.9.1997 when the first respondent attempted to pluck coconuts from the plaint schedule property. It is therefore, prayed that exparte decree may be set aside. C.R.P No.195/07 2 2. The respondents resisted the petition. It is pointed out that after delivery of the property as per the final decree some other persons had instituted O.S.421/92 to set aside the decree in the suit. It is pointed out that the petitioners were the defendants in the said suit. They came to know about the final decree only in 1997 cannot be accepted. It is pointed out that O.S.421/1992 was dismissed. Decree was carried in appeal as A.S.95/1995 which stood dismissed on 30.6.1997. It is therefore prayed that the petition to set aside exparte decree should not be entertained. 3. Before the trial court, petitioner 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.C1 to C3 were marked. The trial court, on an appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the case put forward by the petitioner could not be accepted. They were fully aware of the suit. Petition was dismissed. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal as C.M.A.30/03. Lower appellate court reappraised the evidence and found that the order of the lower court is fully justified and no grounds are made out to interfere with the order. Appeal was dismissed. That order is assailed in this revision. 4. On an independent appreciation of the evidence C.R.P No.195/07 3 both the courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to make out any sufficient reason for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Both the courts have found that the decrees were passed long ago. It was found that summons were properly served to the parties to the suit. 5. One cannot omit to note that preliminary decree was passed as early as on 15.2.1982 and final decree on 13.3.1986. The respective sharers have taken the shares allotted to them on 29.8.1991. What ever that be, from the evidence it is clear that the claim that they came to know about the suit only in 1997 cannot be accepted and believed. 6. It cannot be said that orders are perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.