IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 488 of 2011() ------------------------------ CMA.65/2010 of DISTRICT COURT,KOZHIKODE OS.397/2008 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT- II,KOZHIKODE. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRITHVEE RAJ , S/O.VASU VAIDYAN, SREE RAJ HOUSE, P.O.AZHINHILAM, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAHUL HAMEED M.P., S/O.NOORUDEEN, M.P.HOUSE, VYDHARANGADI POST, VELIPRAM AMSOM, DESOM, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DTISTRICT 673 633. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.488 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 09th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The Civil Revision arises from the judgment of learned District Judge, Kozhikode in C.M.A. No.65 of 2010 allowing that appeal on terms of cost of Rs.3,000/- payable by the respondent. Petitioner filed the suit against respondent for recovery of money. The latter entered appearance but remained absent thereafter. An ex parte decree was passed on 14.08.2008. Petitioner filed E.P. No.130 of 2009. Respondent appeared in the execution petition. Property of respondent was attached, sold and purchased by petitioner. Sale amount was deposited in court. In the meanwhile respondent filed application to set aside the ex parte decree, condone the delay, according to the petitioner for a period of one year alone while the delay involved is one year and six months. Leaned Munsiff recorded evidence of respondent as P.W.1 but was not impressed by the reasons stated and dismissed the application. Learned District Judge having regard to the evidence adduced by the respondent as P.W.1 thought that it is necessary to give the respondent an opportunity to contest the case and C.R.P. No.488 of 2011 -: 2 :- allowed the appeal on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. Petitioner- plaintiff is aggrieved by the said order and filed has this Civil Revision. 2. Learned counsel contended that even as per the version of respondent explanation for delay is only for one year and not for the further delay of six months. 3. Though initially it was the view that each day's delay must be explained, later it has been held that it is sufficient that the party concerned shows sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Respondent has a case that on 11.02.2008 he had a fall from the stair case, suffered fracture of his three ribs, had undergone treatment for about one year and later his son met with an accident on 10.08.2009 and in the circumstances he could not contest the proceedings. He has also a case that when contacted petitioner had told him that the suit itself will be withdrawn (even after the decree was passed). In the circumstances he did not think of filing the applications on time. 4. Learned District Judge has referred to the circumstances and found that delay has been properly explained and the respondent must be given an opportunity to contest the proceeding though on terms. Awarding of costs is within the C.R.P. No.488 of 2011 -: 3 :- discretion of learned District Judge. Once that discretion is exercised unless it is arbitrary, capricious or perverse, revisional court is not required to interfere in the matter. I do not find reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned District Judge. Civil Revision is dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv