BHAVANITHANKACHY Vs. KAMALAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 109 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The challenge in this revision is against an order whereby the court below has set aside the decree passed in the suit conditionally on payment of an amount of Rs. 100/- as costs. In the revision, the petitioner has contended that I. A. No. 186 of 1991 in which the court below has passed the impugned order is bad in law.

(2.) The suit in question after a protracted interlocutory proceedings was posted for appearance of parties to 6.12.1990. On that day the plaintiff alone appeared and on behalf of the defendant there was no representation and the suit was posted to 12.12.1990 for filing written statement. There was also a direction to the effect that no further time will be given for filing the written statement. On 12 12.1990 the counsel for the defendant reported no instructions. Defendant's name was called. He was absent and declared ex parte. After noting that written statement was not filed, the court below heard the plaintiff and the suit was decreed as prayed for. It was the decree so passed by the court below which was sought to be set aside as per I. A. No. 186 of 1991.

(3.) As the only question raised in the revision relates to the maintainability of I. A. No. 186 of 1991, it is not necessary to refer to the reasons stated in the affidavit for the failure of the defendant to appear on the relevant date and file the written statement as ordered. The only question to be considered is whether the application, I. A. No. 186 of 1991 filed under O.9 R.13, CPC. is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case