IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8562 of 2008(T) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2007 IN IA 931/06 AND IA NO.932/06 IN OS.242/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ OUSEPH,S/O. VARKEY,KOORANKALLOOKARAN VEETTIL, DEVAGIRIBHAGOM, THURAVOOR KARA THURAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- JOSE,S/O. POULOSE, PONNATTAN VEETTIL, CHEENAMCHIRA BHAGOM, CHULLY KARA, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8562 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Paravur in I.A.No.931, 932/06 in O.S.No.242/98 whereby the writ petitioner herein has requested to set aside the exparte decree. 2. There is a delay of 2077 days. The court below did not find any ground in favour of the contention. A perusal of the order of the court below would show that some medical certificates and documents are produced. But absolutely no attempt is made to prove those documents. Even the writ petitioner did not give evidence in support of the contention. So necessarily the court has no other option but to hold that there is no grounds and dismissed the application. Now it is strenuously submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that his client is suffering from alzheimers decease and there are real and genuine reasons for the delay. If an opportunity is afforded, it can be proved by the party before the court below. A reading WPC 8562/08 2 of the order also would reveal that there has been some legitimate reason for the delay but whether it is sufficient etc. are all matters which has to be decided by the court below after adducing evidence. 3. So, in order to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to prove the materials relied on, I set aside the order of the court below and direct the court below to dispose of the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to produce and adduce evidence. Needless to say that the other side should also be given sufficient opportunity to rebut the evidence which is adduced. Since I dispose of the matter in the admission stage, the court below shall be given notice to the other side before proceeding with the matter. The writ petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on 9.4.2008. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl