This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an ex-parte decree dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. The court found no material evidence of fraud or sufficient cause for the petitioners' long delay in moving an application to set aside the decree. Notice to respondents was dispensed with.
Revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931
CRP.No. 381 of 2009()
--------------------CMA.13/2008 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR OS.251/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR (IA.1976 & 1977/2007)
REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:DEFENDANTS:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BEEVI, W/O.PAREED, AGED 46, KARUMAKKATTU HOUSE, PERINGALA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE.
2. PAREED, S/O.MUHAMMADALI, AGED 48, KARUMAKKATTU HOUSE, PERINGALA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE.
BY ADV. MR.K.R.MOHANAN
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT:PLAINTIFF:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBRAHUMKUTTY, S/O.HASSAINAR, AGED ABOUT 39, KOYAMPARAMBIL PARIYARATHU VEEDU, PERINGALA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
C.R.P.No.381 of 2009
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009
O R D E R
This revision is filed against the judgment styled as an order
passed by the learned Sub Judge, Perumbavoor in C.M.A.No.13/2008. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.251/2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. An ex-parte decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction was passed against the petitioners/defendants in the above suit. They moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with a petition to condone delay of 658 days. Notice being given, plaintiff opposed that application filing written objections. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, not being satisfied with the grounds canvassed for setting aside the ex-parte decree, dismissed that application. The appeal preferred against that order by the petitioners also was unsuccessful. The learned Sub Judge was in agreement with the views taken by the learned Munsiff. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of the judgment rendered by the court below and also the order of the learned Munsiff, this revision has been filed.
C.R.P.No.381 of 2009
2
petitioners/defendants did not file written statement which, consequently resulted in setting them ex-parte again and passing of an ex-parte decree against them. It appears from the order
C.R.P.No.381 of 2009
passed by the learned Munsiff, no material was placed before that court to show the cause, if any, leave alone sufficient cause, for the absence of the petitioners or any of them for their nonappearance before the court on the date of hearing of the suit and also for the long delay in moving the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. When no material was placed to prove their absence and also for condonation of delay, it goes without saying that the application for condonation of delay could not have been entertained and that alone was the order passed by the learned Munsiff, which can never be considered as improper. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff which was confirmed by the learned Sub Judge in appeal.
The revision petition is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
bkn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the revision petition impugning the lower courts' dismissal of an application to set aside an ex-parte decree and condone of delay.
Whether the plaintiff's allegation of fraud regarding an earlier partition suit requires setting aside an order dismissing delay condonation.
Beevi w/o Pareed
Pareed s/o Muhammadali
Ibrahimkutty s/o Hassainar
S.S. Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
