IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 48 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2007 IN IA 3753/2007 IN OS.70/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT --------------------- ANGAMALY CHITS FUND (P) LTD., ANGAMALY KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.G.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ----------------- 1. C.R.JAYASREE, W/O.RAJEEV, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. 2. A.S.SAJEEV, S/O.SANKARAN, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. 3. A.S.HARIDEV JOSHY, S/O.SANKARAN, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. 4. K.V.GOPINATHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KADAMBANATTU HOUSE, KOTHATTU KARA, KADAMAKKUDI VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 5. V.E.SUKUMARAN, EASWARAN, VELANPARAMBIL, OKKAL KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 6. P.N.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE, MANIKAMANGALAM KARA, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 7. P.K.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, PAGATHU HOUSE, KODUSSERY KARA, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH FOR R1 & 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 522 OF 2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.No.149/2008 in C.R.P.No.48 of 2008 DISMISSED 16.7.2008 Sd/= (M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.) //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.48 & 522 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th July, 2008. O R D E R These revision petitions are filed challenging the common impugned order passed by Sub Court, North Paravur, in I.A.Nos.3753 & 3754 of 2007, in O.S.No.70 of 2004. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents the defendants. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25.1.2005. The applications, one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 993 days in filing the petition, and the other to set aside the ex-parte decree under Rule 13 of Order IX of Code of Civil Procedure were filed. Learned Sub Judge allowed both the petitions on payment of cost of Rs.1000/= within 15 days from the date of the order. These revision petitions are filed challenging the order contending that learned Sub Judge did not consider the sufficiency of the cause shown for absence of the respondents, when the suit was decreed ex-parte or whether there is sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 993 days. CRP.Nos.48 & 522 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents were heard. 3. When an application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 993 days and another petition to set aside the ex-parte decree is also filed, court is bound to consider whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 993 days in filing the application. If the delay is to be condoned, court has to see whether there was sufficient reason for the absence of the defendants, when the suit was decreed ex-parte. Unfortunately, learned Sub Judge did not consider any of these relevant and necessary aspects while allowing the applications by the impugned order. The only reason shown is that there is an arguable case for the defendants as O.S.No.69/2004 was pending at that time. That itself is not a ground to set aside the ex-parte decree. What is to be decided by the Court is whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 993 days, as well as for the failure of the defendants to appear and contest the suit, in order to set aside ex- parte decree. As the learned Sub Judge did not consider these aspects, the impugned common order is set aside. I.A.Nos.3753 & CRP.Nos.48 & 522 of 2008 3 3754 of 2007 is remanded back to the Sub Court, North Paravur, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after affording the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence. Revision petitions are disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.