IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4550 of 2005(N)
1. JACOB, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MINIMOLE, W/O. VARGHESE,
... Respondent
2. PHILIPOSE VARGHESE, VAZHAVILA MELETHIL
For Petitioner :SRI.B.JAYASURYA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :29/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 4550 of 2005
----------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is remaining defective for non completion
of service of notice on the first respondent. But it is seen that
the 2nd respondent was also a co-petitioner in the I.As along with
the first respondent. Since the 2nd respondent is served with
notice, he can represents the interest of the first respondent also.
Hence the writ petition is not defective.
2. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution. He impugns Ext.P5 order passed
by the learned Munisiff on an application to set aside ex-parte
decree filed by the defendants. The petitioner also impugns
Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application
for condonation of delay caused in the matter.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that it was without
considering the objections which he had filed to applications filed
by the respondents that the learned Munsiff allowed the I.As. By
WPC No4550/2005 2
Exts.P4 and P5. Ext.P4 is an order passed on the application for
condonation of delay. The delay, I informed, was about 9
months. In Ext.P5, the learned Munsiff says that since the
service was served by affixture, the same is vitiated and there is
ground to set aside the ex-parte decree. I am of the view that
the learned Munsiff ought to have considered the objections
raised by the petitioner to the application and pass a reasoned
orders on both the applications.
Accordingly, I set aside Exts.P4 and P5 and direct the
learned Munsiff to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.1023/2004 and
1024/2004 at any rate within two months of receiving a copy of
this judgment. The learned Munsiff is not expected to condone
the delay as a matter of course and will remember that service
by affixture is also a mode of service envisaged by Order 5 Rule
20 of the CPC.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
dpk WPC No4550/2005 3