K.Narayanan vs Thomson Nadar on 3 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 30 of 2009()


1. K.NARAYANAN, RAJU BHAVAN, SPACE NAGAR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. AYSHA NARAYANAN, W/O.NARAYANAN, RAJU

                        Vs



1. THOMSON NADAR, RAJU BHAVAN, COMPANY
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAJESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, RAJU BHAVAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.DINESH

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :03/08/2009

 O R D E R
              P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      F.A.O. NO. 30 OF 2009
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = =
       DATED THIS, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2009.

                         J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

This is an appeal against an order dismissing the petition to set

aside the exparte decree passed against the appellants. Since there

was a delay of 1044 days caused in filing the application for setting

aside the ex parte decree, the appellants filed an application to

condone the said delay. The reason put forth for the delay in the

affidavit was that the first appellant/first petitioner was suffering

from glaucoma and his wife, the second appellant was bed ridden

due to paralysis. But except to throw a medical certificate, the first

appellant did not mount the box to give evidence nor the doctor was

examined. In such circumstances, the court below found that in the

absence of any appreciable evidence in support of the reason put

forth by the first appellant for condoning the delay, the petition is

devoid of merit.

2. We have gone through the records and also seen the

judgment. The delay is of 1044 days. According to the first

F.A.O. 30/2009 2

appellant, he was suffering from glaucoma. But he has no case that

he is totally blind to incapacitate or appear in court. Further, this is a

progressive disease and when the appellant himself came later with a

petition to condone the delay, how can it be said that the delay is

attributable to such reasons? He did not mount the box and the

doctor was not examined in the case. Therefore, it is not possible to

find fault with the court below in dismissing the application. We

find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below.

The appeal is dismissed.

P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.

KNC/-