IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2007 / 10TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 3117 of 2007(U) ------------------------ OS.191/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS. ----------------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.CHERPUKARAN BALAKRISHNAN, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HIS WIFE, VINEETHA, CHERPUKA RAN HOUSE, ALAGAPPANAGAR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. ANIRUDHAN (DEAF & DUMB), S/O.CHERPUKARAN BALAKRISHNAN, REP. BY HIS WIFE, LALITHA, CHERPUKARAN HOUSE, ALAGAPPANAGAR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS. ------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY SECRETARY, K.S.E.B., VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB MAJOR SECTION, PUDUKKAD. BY JOSE J. MATHEIKAL SC FOR KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 3117 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of January, 2007. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P7 order. The background of the case is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the Kerala State Electricity Board for damages and as per Ext.P1 judgment the trial court granted a decree for Rs.1,50,000/- with 6% interest. It is seen from the judgment that the defendants were set exparte. Thereafter, defendants filed I.A.3482/05 and I.A. 3476/05 to condone the delay and set aside the exparte decree. The trial court on an analysis of the materials found genuine reasons and therefore condoned the delay and set aside the exparte decree. It is to quash that order the present writ petition is filed. 2. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court would reveal that the defendants did not file any written statement. The advocate was examined before Court and he deposed that the case bundle was misplaced and it is further strengthened by the fact that K.S.E.B. never received a copy of the judgment or WPC 3117 OF 2007 -:Page numbers:- decree. It is a well settled principle that as far as possible cases should be decided on merits and the interest of justice has to be met after hearing both sides. Equally, there is a caution that if there is gross negligence or grave mis-conduct the exparte decree cannot be set aside that lightly. The learned trial judge after perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 found that there was serious laches or negligence on the part of the Advocate of the K.S.E.B. in prosecuting the case. It also took note of the fact that plaintiffs had been put into hardship and therefore it was redressed by awarding costs of Rs.2,000/-. So, I find that the trial court has approached the subject matter in the proper perspective and set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. It is made clear that the suit is one for damages and is of the year 2003 and therefore the K.S.E.B. is directed to co-operate with the trial court and the trial court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from today and a copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the trial court for necessary compliance. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-