HABEEB MOHAMMED Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 117 of 2008 of the Sub Court, Nedumangad. An exparte decree for recovery of money was passed against the petitioner. He filed I.A. No. 389 of 2012 to set aside that exparte decree. But, that application was dismissed for default on 04.10.2012. The petitioner applied for a copy of the said order. In the meantime, the respondent started execution of the decree and brought the property of the petitioner for sale on 17.12.2012. Petitioner filed O.P.(C) No. 4377 of 2012. This Court granted some respite to the petitioner by staying the sale till 17.01.2013. There was also a direction to issue a copy of the order dated 04.11.2012 on I.A. No. 389 of 2012.

(2.) EXT .P4 is the copy of the impugned order which is under challenge in this Original Petition. The petitioner submits that due to a communication gap, the counsel was not able to inform the date of posting of I.A. No. 389 of 2012 to the petitioner and hence he was absent on 04.10.2012.

(3.) I make it clear that the above will not preclude the petitioner seeking restoration of I.A. No. 389 of 2012 on appropriate grounds as are available to him.