IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 256 of 2006() -------------------------------- CMA.NO. 182/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM (IN I.A.NO.256/1997 IN OS.NO. 1879/1993 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM) --------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------------- SADASIVAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, T.C.36/1104, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SRI.B.SATHIQ SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT PULLIYIL BUNGLOW, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NANDESWARAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT BUNGLOW VEEDU, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT BUNGLOW VEEDU, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. YESODHA, S/O. PONNU, RESIDING AT KATTAYAMMOOLA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, UPANIYOOR DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. AJITHA, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2/- -2- CRP.NO.256/2006 6. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. AMBILI, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. GEETHA, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SINDHU, D/O. SWAYAMPRABHA, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. GANESAN, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KAYALUVARAMBATHU VEEDU, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. SIVAPRASAD, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAYAMMOTA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. SUBASH @ JAYAPRASAD, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAYAMOOTA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. MONIKUTTAN @ SIVAPRIYAN, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KOTTAYAMOOTA VEEDU, VELLAYANI, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.256 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.1879 of 1993 of the court of learned II Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a suit filed by the first respondent against petitioner and others for partition of properties. There was an exparte decree on 26.06.1995 which was sought to be set aside by the petitioner vide I.A.No.256 of 1997. There was also an application to condone the delay in filing that application. Trial court found no merit in the explanation stated for condonation of delay, and dismissed both the applications. Petitioner challenged the order in C.M.A.No.182 of 2003. Learned Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the order. Hence this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner has obtained mortgage right over the property which contention could not be raised in the suit. It is also contended that the delay was properly explained. It is contended by learned counsel that the suit was dismissed for default as against some of the respondents and at that time petitioner's advocate had told him that the suit was dismissed as against him as well. 2. The contentions raised by petitioner for condonation of delay was not appealing to the courts below. The exparte decree was passed on 26.06.1995. Courts below have observed from the affidavit of petitioner that CRP No.256/2006 2 even regarding the date on which he allegedly got information about the exparte decree, there are contradictory version. At one stage it is stated that he learnt about the exparte decree on 20.01.1996 but at another stage, he claimed to have learnt about it on 20.03.1996. I must also bear in mind that decree was passed on 26.06.1995. The appellate court has observed that petitioner was set exparte on 03.02.1993. It is almost after three years that the exparte decree was passed. 3. On the materials placed before me, a decree passed on 26.06.1995 cannot be reopened at this stage. The principle 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus jura subveniunt' (the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep) should apply. Revision Petition is dismissed. I.A.No.1221 of 2006 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks