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/-