IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 168 of 2009() --------------------- CMA.35/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE OS.74/2006 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY (IA.302 & 303/2008) .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): ---------------------------------------- MANNARKANDY CHANDRAMTHY, D/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, AGED 50, SIVAPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS, SMT.M.LISHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THOTTATHIL GEETHA, D/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 34, PUTHIYOTUMKANDY HOUSE, BALUSSERY AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.168 of 2009 - A --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.2009 in C.M.A.No.35 of 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Kozhikode. Revision petitioner was the defendant in O.S.No.74 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. Respondent as plaintiff instituted the above suit for a decree of specific performance of an agreement of sale. Suit was decreed ex-parte. Petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree with a petition to condone delay of 129 days. The learned Sub Judge, after conducting an enquiry, not being satisfied with the cause shown dismissed the application. Challenge raised against the order of the learned Sub Judge by way of an appeal was also negatived by the learned District Judge under the judgment impugned in the revision. Propriety and correctness of that judgment is assailed in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent stating that sufficient cause had not been made out by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte decree submitted that he does not stand in the C.R.P.No.168 of 2009 - A 2 way of allowing the revision subject to terms, compensating the injury likely to be suffered by the respondent/decree holder in setting aside a decree after so much lapse of time. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find some indulgence can be shown to the petitioner/defendant subject to imposing cost compensating the injury likely to be suffered by the respondent in annulling the decree obtained in his favour. The ex-parte decree passed in the suit shall be set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. Cost fixed shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court and a memo filed evidencing such payment on or before 24.8.2009. If cost is not paid within the stipulated as directed the revision shall stand dismissed without any further orders. Revision is disposed subject to the directions as indicated above. For report, post on 25.8.2009. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-