High Court Kerala High Court

Ajitha Rajendran vs Shylaja on 25 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Ajitha Rajendran vs Shylaja on 25 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(C).No. 323 of 2011(O)


1. AJITHA RAJENDRAN, VILAYIL VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHYLAJA, KAKKIDIYIL,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :25/01/2011

 O R D E R
                     K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                ------------------------------------
                 O.P.(C).No.323 of 2011 O
                ------------------------------------
           Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011




                        JUDGMENT

The defendant in O.S.No.362 of 2003 on the file of

the Sub Court, Kollam, against whom an ex-parte decree

was passed on 26.10.2005, filed application to set aside the

ex-parte decree on 5.3.2010. The trial court dismissed the

applications. On appeal, the appellate court confirmed that

order.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent for realisation

of a sum of ` 1,17,000/- on the basis of an agreement. The

suit was filed on 20.9.2003. The first posting of the case was

on 2.12.2003. The defendant entered appearance and prayed

for granting time for filing written statement. The suit was

posted for filing written statement on 26.3.2004. It was

adjourned to 24.7.2004. The defendant did not file any written

statement. She was set ex-parte on 24.7.2004. Thereafter,

O.P.(C) No.323/2011 2

an ex-parte decree was passed on 26.10.2005. When execution

proceedings were initiated, the defendant filed the application for

setting aside the ex-parte decree on 5.3.2010. There was a delay

1561 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte

decree. The only reason stated by the petitioner/defendant for

condoning the delay was that from 2004 onwards, she was laid

up due to rheumatism and therefore, she could not contact the

counsel and file the written statement. No medical certificate

was produced. The petitioner was not examined also. There was

no evidence before the court below to accept the case of the

petitioner. No grounds were made out to condone the delay.

The courts below rightly dismissed the applications and the

appeal.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is dismissed.

K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl

O.P.(C) No.323/2011 3