IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 309 of 2011(O) CMA.8/2010 OF III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.96/2004 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA PETITIONER: -------------------- SREEKUMARA PILLAI ALIAS SREEKUMAR, SURESH BHAVANAM, KALLALI BHAGAM, THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT: --------------- PADMAKSHI AMMA,NAGARUVILLA PUTHENVEETTIL PANAPETTI MURI, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 309 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the orders in I.A.Nos.188 of 2008 and 187 of 2008 in O.S.No.96 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta and the judgment in C.M.A.No.8 of 2010, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kollam. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that she is the sole legal heir of her deceased daughter Rajalakshmi and for an injunction restraining the defendant from collecting the service benefits of deceased Rajalakshmi. The plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The petitioner filed a written statement in the suit. However, on 4.1.2005, the court below passed an exparte decree, since the defendant and his counsel were absent when the case was posted for trial. 3. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.187 of 2008 to set aside the exparte decree. There was delay of 1137 days in filing the O.P.(C) NO.309 OF 2011 O :: 2 :: application to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.188 of 2008 for condoning the delay. The trial court found that no reasons were made out by the petitioner/defendant for condoning the delay of 1137 days. The trial court considered the case put forward by the defendant that after sustaining injuries he was undergoing treatment and found that the said case cannot be accepted at all, since even after that date the defendant filed affidavits before court. The story put forward by the defendant in an attempt to explain the delay of 1137 days was not believed by the trial court. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay as well as the application to set aside the exparte decree were dismissed. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner as C.M.A.No.8 of 2010 was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The appellate court also considered the facts and evidence on record and held that no grounds were made out by the petitioner for condonation of the long delay. From the appellate judgment, it is seen that on the death of Rajalakshmi, the wife of the defendant, the defendant got a job in the Health Department where Rajalakshmi was working. By the decree which is sought to be set aside, the mother-in-law of the defendant O.P.(C) NO.309 OF 2011 O :: 3 :: got the service benefits of Rajalakshmi, the daughter of the plaintiff. Considering the factual background also, there was nothing wrong on the part of the court below in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and the application for setting aside the exparte decree. No grounds are made out for interference. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/