KUTTAN S/O.KUNCHEKKAN Vs. GOPALANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are defendants in O.S.No.193 of 2009 of Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam aggrieved by the judgment in C.M.A.No.19 of 2011 of Sub Court, Ottapalam confirming dismissal of I.A.No.1664 of 2010 to set aside the ex parte decree.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed the suit for recovery of possession of 28 cents on the strength of title. Petitioners resisted the suit on a plea of adverse possession and limitation. The case was posted for trial in the special list on 17.07.2010. Learned counsel for petitioners reported no instruction. Ex parte decree was passed on 24.07.2010. Petitioners filed I.A.No.1664 of 2010 to set aside the ex parte decree. They contended that first petitioner who was conducting the suit and was laid up during the relevant time and hence could not inform the counsel about that. A medical certificate was also produced. The application was dismissed. That order was confirmed by the learned Sub Judge.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has contend that the plea raised by petitioners is adverse possession and limitation. It is pointed out that the adjascent owner, one Narayanan had filed O.S.No.167 of 2009 against petitioners for recovery of possession of the adjoining land, that suit was decreed in favour of the said Narayanan and learning that petitioners have no chance of success in the present suit, counsel reported no instruction. It is also contended by the learned counsel that on I.A.No.1664 of 2010, none of the petitioners gave evidence, not to say that the medical officer who issued the certificate was examined. It is argued that on the day the case was taken up for trial in the special list, first petitioner was present in the Court. Respondent gave evidence in that line as RW1.