IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 14 of 2010(O) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2010 IN IA 1169/2010 IN OS.539/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT "SOUPARNIKA" MANANTHAVADI TALUK, AARATTUTHARA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD. 2. PRASANNA KUMARI, W/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT DING AT "SOUPARNIKA" MANANTHAVADI TALUK, AARATTUTHARA AMSOM, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENT: --------------- LAKSHMI, W/O.RAGHAVAN, AISWARYA, NENMANDA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 613. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.14 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.539 of 2005. Against them there was an ex parte decree initially passed by the learned Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode. That ex parte decree was set aside by this court in W.P.C.No.6696 of 2007 directing petitioners to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- and to deposit half of the total rent arrears payable till 31-08-2005. The ex parte decree was set aside and once again it resulted in an ex parte decree against petitioners. Then petitioners came with I.A.No.1169 of 2010 to set aside that ex parte decree. Learned Munsiff allowed that application on condition that petitioners paid cost of Rs.2,000/- and deposited entire plaint claim within one month from date of the order. That order is under challenge in this petition. It is contended that even as per report of the Advocate Commissioner cost for repairs came only to Rs.1460/- as against plaint claim of Rs.40,000/- but petitioners are now asked to deposit the entire plaint claim (Rs.40,000) which is exorbitant. 2. Question is whether interference is required at this stage with the conditional order that learned Munsiff has passed. O.P(C).No. 14 of 2010 : 2 : If at all petitioners are not able to comply with the condition imposed in the order on I.A.No.1169 of 2010 and that application is ultimately dismissed, petitioners are not without any remedy- they can challenge rejection of the application to set aside the ex parte decree in appeal as provided under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure where it is open to the petitioners to challenge validity or excessiveness of the conditions imposed. In the circumstance, interference is not required with the conditions imposed passed by the learned Munsiff at this stage, in this proceeding. Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of petitioners to challenge the conditions imposed on petitioners in case they are to challenge the ultimate order in I.A.No.1169 of 2010 in appeal, this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-