IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32915 of 2007(R)
1. SHAIJA NAZER,D/O.NAIDATHPARAMBIL
... Petitioner
2. NABEESA,W/O.NAIDATHPARAMBIL SAIDALI,
Vs
1. AJAYAGHOSH,W/O.AVINIPPILLY KRISHNANKUTTY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :06/11/2007
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 32915 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge,
Irinjalakuda in C.M.A. 33/2006. The defendants in the suit filed an
application for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with a petition to
condone the delay of more than four years. The averments for condoning
the delay was that they did not receive any notice and that they came to
know about the decree only when it was put in for execution.
2. The trial court in para. 5 of the order had specifically stated that
the first and second defendants were served on 22.05.1999 and the 3rd
defendant on 24.05.1999. Service on fifth defendant was served by
affixture. The court on perusal of the records was able to find out that
summons have properly been served on the parties. The said view was
reappreciated in appeal by the appellate judge and he did not find any
ground to deviate from the findings arrived at by the court below. For
invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227, there must be apparent error or
illegality. If not, this court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of
fact entered into by the court below. The Apex court has also cautioned
that if there are concurrent finding of fact, this court shall not substitute its
view for the concurrent findings of the court below. Therefore I find
absolutely no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps