M K AHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. T R JAIN PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.89 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. Suit was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for realisation of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest and cost. The defendants were set ex-parte. The court decreed the suit on 31.5.2001. The decree holder filed execution petition for execution of the decree.

(2.) In 2006 the petitioner filed I.A.No.462 of 2006 for setting aside the ex-parte decree and I.A.No.461 of 2006 for condoning the delay in filing I.A.No.462 of 2006. The Sub Court passed Ext.P3 order on the above said I.As.

(3.) The court found that the petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit entered appearance in the suit through a lawyer and sought time on several occasions for filing written statement. Subsequently, he remained absent and the ex-parte decree was passed by the court in 31.5.2001. The court also found that the petitioner remained absent till the decree holder sought execution of the decree. On an appreciation of the evidence, facts and circumstances the court further held that the attempt of the petitioner is to protract the execution of the decree and that there is no truth in the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.Nos.461 & 462 of 2006. Ext.P3 order was passed by the court on 27.3.2007. Petitioner filed C.M.A.No.12 of 2007 before the District Court, Manjeri. The appellate court also concurred with the findings of the trial court and on facts held that there are no sufficient cause shown for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and that the learned Sub Judge is justified in dismissing both the applications.