(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S. No. 821 of 2005 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Alappuzha is the petitioner challenging common order refusing to condone the delay of one year and 305 days (to set aside the ex parte decree) and dismissal of application to set aside the ex parte decree as confirmed by learned District Judge in the C.M appeal.
(2.) RESPONDENT obtained an ex parte decree for payment of money on 30 -09 -2006. After one year and 305 days petitioner filed Exts.P1 and P2, applications to set aside the ex parte decree and condone the delay. In the affidavit in support of the applications he stated that on receiving summons in the suit, he entrusted the matter to Adv. R. Uma Sankar but he did not hear anything from the advocate. On getting notice on the execution petition he learned that counsel had stopped practice and joined some bank as Legal Advisor. That according to him was the cause for delay. Respondent resisted the applications by Exts.P3 and P4, objections. Learned Munsiff dismissed applications vide Ext.P5 common order. That has been confirmed by the learned District Judge in Ext.P7, judgment in C.M.A. No. 38 of 2009. Learned Counsel states that petitioner has serious contentions to be raised in the suit and that delay was properly explained. According to the learned Counsel there is a factual mistake in the common order passed by learned Munsiff.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel requested that petitioner may be given an opportunity to get the matter referred to the adalath for settlement. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to make a request in the executing court for the said purpose and if any such request is made executing court shall consider that request after hearing learned Counsel for respondent also and pass appropriate orders. In the circumstances stated by learned Counsel and to facilitate petitioner make the above request warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner shall remain in abeyance for a period of three weeks from today.