AYYAPPAN Vs. AMMUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise from common judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Manjeri in C.M.A.Nos.19 of 2006 and 24 of 2006 refusing to interfere with the common order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Tirur on I.A.Nos.1618 of 2005 and 1619 of 2005 in O.S.No.26 of 1998. Petitioners in O.P.(C) No.119 of 2010 filed O.S.No.26 of 1998 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Tirur for specific performance of an agreement for sale against the respondent therein (respondent No.6 in O.P.(C) No.129 of 2010). Respondent in O.P.(C) No.119 of 2010 (respondent No.6 in O.P.(C) No.129 of 2010) filed O.S.No.7 of 2000 for recovery of possession on the strength of title. It happened that on account of default of petitioners O.S.No.26 of 1998 was dismissed for default while O.S.No.7 of 2000 was decreed exparte. It is thereon that petitioners filed I.A.Nos.1618 of 2005 and 1619 of 2005, respectively in O.S.Nos.26 of 1998 and 7 of 2000 to set aside the dismissal of O.S.No.26 of 1998 and to set aside the exparte decree in O.S.No.7 of 2000. Those applications were allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- each. Petitioners challenged the common order in C.M.A.Nos.19 of 2006 and 26 of 2006. Learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the common order on I.A.No.1618 of 2005 in O.S.No.26 of 1998 and 1619 of 2005 in O.S.No.7 of 2000. That judgment/order are under challenge in these petitions. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there was no reason for learned Sub Judge to impose cost and at any rate cost imposed is excessive. Learned counsel for the respondent in O.P.(C) No.119 of 2010 and respondent No.6 in O.P.(C) No.129 of 2010 contended that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment/order under challenge and that on account of non-payment of cost applications above stated stand dismissed and there is no reason to interfere.

(2.) I have gone through the common order on I.A.Nos.1618 of 2005 and 1619 of 2005 and common judgment in C.M.A.Nos.19 of 2006 and 24 of 2006. In the circumstances stated therein there is no reason to interfere with the order allowing the applications on terms of cost. Having considered nature of the suits and also the circumstances under which O.S.No.26 of 1998 was dismissed and O.S.No.7 of 2000 was decreed exparte, I do not find reason to think that cost awarded is exorbitant. So this Court is not required to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) What remained is only whether petitioner should be given time to deposit cost ordered by the learned Sub Judge and as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. Having considered the matter and considering the request made by the learned counsel I am inclined to grant three weeks time from this day to deposit cost as ordered by courts below in the court of learned Sub Judge, Tirur. Resultantly, these petitions are disposed of permitting petitioner to deposit cost as ordered, in the court of learned Sub Judge, Tirur within three weeks from this day. On such deposit, I.A.No.1618 of 2005 and 1619 of 2005 will stand allowed and dismissal of O.S.No.26 of 1998 and the exparte decree in O.S.No.7 of 2000 set aside. It is made clear that if cost is not deposited within the said time, these petitions will stand dismissed. In case suits are resurrected, trial court shall dispose of the same as early as possible.