IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33544 of 2004(R)
1. CHANDRAGUPTAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. SREEJA, D/O. CHANDRAGUPTAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. BINDU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :22/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.33544 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 22nd June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ext.P5 order by which the court below has dismissed an
application for restoration of an application to set aside the ex parte
decree is under challenge. The Writ Petition is instituted some two
years after Ext.P5 was passed.
2. I have gone through the Writ Petition and I have heard the
submissions of Mr.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent.
The suit was one for declaration of plaintiff’s right over the suit
property and for permission to put up a barbed wire fencing on its
boundary the property covered by Ext.A1 which is a settlement deed
executed in favour of the respondent by her mother. The executant
of Ext.A1 had obtained title to the property from the 1st petitioner
who was the previous owner. It is not specifically denied in the
written statement which was filed by the 1st petitioner that the extent
shown in the document which was executed by the 1st petitioner in
favour of the mother of the respondent was two acres. On the
contrary what is contended is that though an extent of two acres is
shown in Ext.A1, the extent actually conveyed by the mother to the
W.P.C.No. – 2 –
daughter the respondent was only 1.75 acres. In other words, the
contentions raised were not easily capable of being substantiated by
adducing legal evidence. I have gone through Ext.P5. The learned
Munsiff under Ext.P5 has found that the oral evidence adduced by the
1st petitioner did not inspire confidence in his mind. The explanation
offered by the 1st petitioner for his absence when the case was taken
up for trial was that he had left the court to purchase medicine
without informing the counsel or any one else. The learned Munsiff
significantly the same officer who presided over the court at the time
of dismissal of the suit was not inspired by the oral evidence given by
the 1st petitioner. I do not find any warrant for interfering with Ext.P5
especially since I feel that the contentions raised by the 1st petitioner
through the written statement was almost impossible of being
substantiated by adducing legal evidence. At any rate, it cannot be
said that the impugned order is vitiated to the extent of entailing
liability for interference under Article 227. The challenge against
Ext.P5 will fail and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE