IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 33730 of 2007(M) ------------------------------- (I.A.No.1211/2007,I.A.No.1213/07 and I.A.No.4472/07 IN O.S.No.690/06 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM.) PETITIONER: ------------ SASIDHARAN PILLAI, "VISAKH", THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.BINDU R. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)34260/2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- APPENDIX Ext.P1:- True copy of the I.A.1211/07 dated 27.2.2007. Ext.P2:- True copy of the I.A.1213/07 dated 02.03.2007. Ext.P3:- True copy of the objection in I.A.1211/07 dated 3.4.2007. Ext.P4:- True copy of the objection in I.A.No.1213/2007 dated 3.4.2007. Ext.P5:- True copy of the Order in I.A.No.1211/07 dated 20.6.2007. Ext.P6:- True copy of the Order in I.A.No.1213/07 dated 20.6.2007. Ext.P7:- True copy of the judgment dated 23.7.2007 in W.P.(C)22489/07. Ext.P8: True copy of the I.A.No.4472/07 dated nil. Ext.P9: True copy of the written objection dated 18.10.2007. Ext.P10:- True copy of the order dated 5.10.2007 in I.A.1211/07, I.A.1213/07 and I.A.4472/07 in O.S.No.690/06 of the Addl.Munsiff Court, Kollam. /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.33730/2007 & 34260 OF 2007 =========================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.690/2006 and O.S.692/2006 on the file of Additional District Court, Kollam. Defendants are District Collector, Additional Tahsildar and Travancore Devasom Board. Defendants in both the suits were set ex parte, as they did not file written statement. The suit was posted for evidence of the plaintiffs. At that stage, defendants 1 and 2 filed an application and third defendant a separate application to set aside the ex parte order. Defendants have also filed separate applications to receive written statements. All the petitions were opposed by the petitioners plaintiffs by filing separate counter affidavits. Learned Munsiff under Ext.P5 and P6 order dated 20.6.2007 in W.P.(C)33730/2007 allowed the applications without a reasoned order. All these orders were challenged before this court in W.P.(C)33730/2007 &34260/2007 2 W.P.(C)22490/2007 and W.P.(C)22489/2007. Under two separate judgments (Ext.P7), Exts.P5 and P6 orders were set aside and the petitions were remitted back to the trial court to dispose afresh after considering the objection and hearing the parties. Learned Munsiff under Ext.P10 order respectively allowed the applications and set aside the ex parte order and received the written statements. It is challenging Ext.P10 order in O.S.692/2006 W.P(C) 34260/2007 is filed. It is challenging Ext.P10 order in O.S.690/2006 W.P.(C)33730/2007 is filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for third respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that trial court did not properly consider the objections raised by the petitioners. It was argued that the affidavit in support of the application filed by defendants 1 and 2 was filed not by the official concerned and instead by the Government pleader and in the absence of an affidavit by the party, learned W.P.(C)33730/2007 &34260/2007 3 Munsiff should not have allowed the application. Reliance was placed on the decision of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Premier Chemical Industries v. Member Convenor (2006(3) KLT 923). Learned counsel argued that sufficient cause was not shown in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions and in such circumstance, the petitions should not have been allowed. Learned Government pleader relying on the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Subramania Iyer v. Valsala (2000(1)KLT 751 argued that what is to be shown is not sufficient cause as in the case under Rule 13 of Order IX but only good cause and that cause was shown. Government pleader also pointed out that there is a distinction between a counsel appearing for a private party by filing a vakalath and the Government pleader who was appointed by the court pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet and Government pleader is competent to act on behalf of the party and in such circumstance there is no illegality or irregularity in Ext.P10 orders passed by the trial court. Learned counsel appearing for third respondent also W.P.(C)33730/2007 &34260/2007 4 argued that there is no illegality or irregularity in Ext.P10 orders warranting interference. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Ext.P10 orders. The order is only one enabling the petitioner to get a decree on merits. In the suit ex parte decree was not passed. Though defendants were set ex parte on 23.2.2007, petitions were filed on 3.3.2007. Whatever it be, learned Munsiff has only granted an opportunity to the defendants to raise the contentions in the suit so that petitioner could get a decree on merits. In such circumstance, petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006