IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26394 of 2010(O)
1. VINOD, S/O.MOHANAN, PARAVILAKATHU VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SASIDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :19/08/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.C.No.26394 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 19th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ext.P9, order on E.A.No.301 of 2010 in E.P.No.140 of 2005 in
O.S.No.441 of 2001 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff,
Nedumangad is under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner was
served with notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short, “the Code”) but, he did not respond according
to him as he was laid up due to Jaundice at Chennai. He was set ex
parte on 23-02-2010 in the proceeding under Rule 66 of Order XXI
of the Code. He appeared in court and filed Ext.P3, objection to
execution petition and deposited certain amount as per Ext.P4. He
filed Ext.P5, application to set aside the ex parte order. That
application was dismissed vide Ext.P9, order as that application
was preferred beyond 30 days stipulated in Rule 106(3) of Order
XXI of the Code and there is no provision to condone the delay in
filing the application. It is contended by learned counsel that
property was sold in auction and to set aside the sale, petitioner
has filed Ext.P11, application.
2. So far as Ext.P9, order is concerned, I do not find any
illegality as the application to set aside ex parte order was
W.P.C.No.26394 of 2010
: 2 :
admittedly preferred beyond 30 days of the date of ex parte order
and there is no provision to condone the delay.
3. Learned counsel stated that petitioner has in Ext.P11,
application raised a ground among other things that property was
sold for an amount not due to the respondent in that certain
payments already paid were not given credit to. Petitioner
requested that he may be permitted to urge that ground also in
Ext.P11, application preferred to set aside the sale. I make it clear
that all grounds which petitioner has urged in Ext.P11, application
and as permitted under law could be urged in the request to set
aside the sale.
With the above observation writ petition is dismissed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-