High Court Kerala High Court

Rajasekharan Nair vs Sreedevi @ Sreedevi Amma on 19 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rajasekharan Nair vs Sreedevi @ Sreedevi Amma on 19 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 305 of 2009()


1. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SREEDEVI @ SREEDEVI AMMA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SREEDEVI @ CHEMBAKAVALLY THAMPURATTI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :19/01/2010

 O R D E R
                 A.K.BASHEER & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                 F.A.O.No.305 OF 2009
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     Dated this the 19th day of January 2010

                                       JUDGMENT

Basheer, J.

Appellant is defendant No.1 in a suit for recovery of money. He was

absent on the day when the suit was taken up for trial. Consequently, he

was set ex-parte and the court below proceeded to pass an ex-parte decree

against him and his co-defendant.

2. Later, appellant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13

of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree contending

that he was prevented from attending the court on the crucial day, since

he was away in Chennai. More importantly, he was advised rest because

of his heart ailment. However, the court below refused to believe the

appellant and consequently dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

respondent/plaintiff. We have also perused the materials available on

record.

4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable

to agree with the view taken by the court below. In our view, the appellant

ought to have been given an opportunity to defend the suit. We are

satisfied that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. We do so;

but of course on terms.

F.A.O.No.305 OF 2009

:: 2 ::

5. The order under challenge shall be set aside on condition that the

appellant pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent/plaintiff within

two weeks from today. If the appellant fails to pay the said sum of

Rs.5,000/- within the time stipulated, this appeal will stand dismissed.

6. The court below shall dispose of the suit expeditiously after giving

sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff and defendants in accordance with

law.

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
jes