DIVYA MANOHAR Vs. HARI GOVIND R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in a common order dated 06.12.2013 in I.A Nos.1576 of 2013 and 1576(A) of 2013 in O.P No.230 of 2012 preferred the above petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the above common order by which the court below condoned the delay of 217 days that occurred in filing an application to set aside ex -parte decree in O.P No.230 of 2012, in favour of the respondent herein.

(2.) WE heard Smt. Bindhu Sasthamangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondent, nobody has turned up and no objection is raised against the prayer in this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that even from the impugned order it can be seen that the respondent herein, who is the husband of the petitioner, was negligent in contesting the matter in spite of the fact that he was given several opportunities. But, the court below, overlooking the above facts and circumstances mentioned in the impugned order, again granted an opportunity to the respondent herein by imposing a condition directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/ - as cost within fifteen days. According to the learned counsel, the said order of the court below is legally and factually unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.