IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 377 of 2009(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2009 IN I.A.NO.2163/2008 IN OS.114/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------- MOHANAN, S/O.VALIYATHPARAMBIL SANKUNNY, KANNIKARA DESOM, THAZHEKKADU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MALLIKA, W/O.NEDUMBAL THATTAN RAVI, PULLUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. RAVEENDRAN @ RAVI, S/O.NEDUMBAL THATTAN KUTTAPPAN, PULLUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. DINESH, S/O.NEDUMBAL THATTAN RAVEENDRAN @ RAVI, PULLUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. MR.V.BINOY RAM FOR R1 & R2 MR.SURESH BABU (KANDENGHAT) FOR R1 & R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 377 of 2009(A) ORDER ON I.A.NO.1670/2009 IN C.R.P.NO.377/2009 DISMISSED. 14.1.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.377 of 2009 - A --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge allowing an application moved by the third defendant in O.S.No.114 of 2003 for setting aside the exparte decree passed against her in the suit. That application was filed by her with a petition to condone delay of 1802 days. The applications were seriously opposed to by the petitioner/plaintiff in the above suit in whose favour the decree was passed exparte. The learned Munsiff after considering the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides condoning the delay allowed the application of the third defendant. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in the revision. 2. Though notice given, none of the respondents has entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. From the submissions made and perusing the order impugned order, it is seen, previously the present petitioner had C.R.P.No.377 of 2009 - A 2 filed another suit as O.S.No.276 of 2002 against two persons who are second and third respondents in the present revision. The above suit which was one for money was decreed in favour of the petitioner. In execution of the decree a property having an extent of 13.5 cents allegedly belonging to the judgment debtor/defendant in the suit was brought to sale. At that stage, the first respondent herein moved a claim petition setting forth a case that she has title and possession over that property. Her claim petition was upheld and the sale was set aside. Subsequently a suit was filed by the petitioner against the previous defendant also, the first respondent, impeading her as the third defendant in which a decree was sought that the conveyance effected in her favour by the first and second defendants was a fraudulent transfer. An exparte decree was obtained in that suit, O.S.No.114 of 2003. It is against that exparte decree the first respondent/third defendant in the above suit moved an application for setting aside that decree by filing a petition to condone the delay as well. The learned Sub Judge, it appears, taking note of the facts and circumstances involved and C.R.P.No.377 of 2009 - A 3 the materials produced allowed that application. In the given facts of the case and hearing the counsel, it appears to me, a decision on merits is necessary to advance the ends of justice. In that view of the matter I hold that no interference with the order passed in favour of the first respondent setting aside the exparte decree is called for. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-