IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 506 of 2009()
1. PRASAD, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RETNAMMA, W/O.P.G.AMBI, PALACHIRAYIL,
... Respondent
2. REVAMMA, W/O.KRISHNAN, KATTUNKAL VEEDU,
3. KUSALAKUMARI, W/O.CHANDRAKUMAR,
4. RAHUL, S/O.PRAKASAN, THOTTUNKAL VEEDU,
5. PRAKASAN, THOTTUNKAL VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.PRAMOD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :17/09/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
C.R.P.No.506 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September 2009
-------------------------------------
ORDER
The revision is directed against an order
passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha
allowing an application moved by some of the
defendants in O.S No.586 of 2005 for setting aside
an exparte decree passed against them in that suit.
The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides
allowed the application on terms. Petitioner is
the plaintiff in the above suit. Suit was one for
perpetual prohibitory injunction. The defendants 1
and 2 alone among the five defendants in the suit
had moved for setting aside the exparte decree.
But the decree has been set aside as against all
the defendants and further these two defendants
(defendants 1 and 2) have not shown sufficient
cause for setting aside the exparte decree is the
C.R.P.No.506 OF 2009 Page numbers
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner to impeach the propriety and correctness
of the order passed by the court below impugned in
the revision. It is further submitted by the
counsel that the court below too had noticed that
there was latches on the part of the first and
second defendants in defending the case which lead
to passing of an exparte decree.
2. Having regard to the submissions made
and taking note of the facts and circumstances
presented, I find no notice to the respondents is
necessary and it is dispensed with. Perusing the
order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find the
application moved by the first and second
defendants in the suit had been allowed in exercise
of the discretion vested with that court arriving
at a conclusion that the disposal of the suit on
merit is required to advance the ends of justice.
The court has allowed the application only on
C.R.P.No.506 OF 2009 Page numbers
imposing terms to compensate the injury likely to
be suffered by the petitioners / plaintiffs in
setting aside an exparte decree passed in his
favour. I find this court will not be justified in
interfering with the order impugned especially when
it is not shown that the exercise of discretion by
the court below suffered from any infirmity.
However I make it clear, on restoration of the
suit, no duty is cast upon the petitioner /
plaintiff to take further steps for giving notice
to the other defendants against whom the exparte
decree had been passed previously though the
decree as a whole, had been set aside by the orders
impugned. Subject to the above observations, the
revision is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv