IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 125 of 2009(B) --------------------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN I.A – PLAINTIFF IN SUIT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VEERAVU , S/O.ILLIKKOTTIL SAIDALI, KUMARANELLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, MR.P.M.NEELAKANDAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ YASODA D/O.MELEVALAPPIL RAMAN, KANJIRASSERY DESOM, MULLOORKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH CHAKYAT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.125 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Trissur allowing an application moved by the respondent for setting aside an exparte decree in a suit for specific performance. Petition to set aside the exparte decree was filed with an application for condoning the delay of 358 days. In the enquiry over the petition, the respondent/defendant in the suit was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to Ext.A8 were exhibited, and on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit, three witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW3, and, C1 to C3 were exhibited. The learned Sub Judge after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides allowed the application on terms directing the respondent to pay a sum of C.R.P.No.125 OF 2009 2 Rs.2,000/-, which, however is wrongly stated as Rs.1,000/- in the operative portion of the order to the petitioner/plaintiff. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order and contending that it suffers from jurisdictory infirmity, petitioner/ plaintiff in the suit has filed this revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the order impugned in the revision, and after hearing the counsel on both sides, I find no reason to interfere with the order which in fact has been passed by the learned Sub Judge in exercise of his discretion. No circumstance whatsoever was pointed out to show that the discretion has been exercised improperly. It is seen whatever injury suffered by the petitioner/plaintiff in restoring the suit had been also taken into account by directing the respondent/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost. Though the operative portion of the order C.R.P.No.125 OF 2009 3 limits the cost to Rs.1,000/- it is submitted the respondent had already deposited Rs.2,000/- as directed in the order, before the court below. It is further submitted that the defendant has filed the written statement also in the suit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and submissions made by the learned counsel, and further, the suit had been once decreed exparte, but, set aside, later, I direct the learned Sub Judge to give the suit top priority in hearing and to dispose it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the closing of the court for Christmas vacation, but, after giving both parties sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective case. The revision petition is dismissed subject to the above direction. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv