SAJITHA KUMARI, D/O. SARASWATHI AMMA, AGED 42 YEARS, SREELEKSHMI, THETTIKUZHY, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT Vs. PRAJITH, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SANDHYA BHAVAN, THETTIKUZHY PARIPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The above revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the court below in I.A Nos.1203 of 2015 and 1204 of 2015 in O.S No.317 of 2014 of Munsiff Court, South Paravur. The case of the revision petitioner is that the petitioner as plaintiff filed O.S No.317 of 2014 before Munsiff Court, South Paravur against the defendant for mandatory injunction on the basis of an agreement dated 02.07.2014, since the respondent did not vacate the premises as undertaken. So he filed the above suit for mandatory injunction to get vacant possession of the plaint schedule building. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30.05.2015 granting a decree for mandatory injunction permitting the petitioner to get vacant possession of the plaint schedule building through court. Petitioner filed E.P No.17 of 2014 to execute the decree and at that time the respondent filed I.A No.1203 of 2015 to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A no.1204 of 2015 to condone the delay. Those applications were dismissed for default and delivery was ordered and he filed I.A No.934 of 2016 to restore those applications. But that was also dismissed by the court below which was challenged by the respondent by filing O.P(C) No.1421 of 2016 before this Court and this Court by order dated 13.06.2016 allowed the petition and directed the Munsiff to consider I.A Nos.1203 of 2015 and 1204 of 2015 on merit on payment of cost of Rs.7,000.00 to the respondent. It is thereafter, after hearing both sides court below allowed the applications on payment of Rs.5,000.00 payable on or before 31.08.2016. This order is under challenge by filing the above revision by the petitioner who is the plaintiff before the court below.

(2.) Considering the nature of dispute, this Court felt that the revision can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. The counsel for the revision petitioner Sri. R. Mohan Babu vehemently argued that the order passed by the court below is unsustainable in law and wanted to set aside the order and also submitted that if the court is not inclined to admit the revision, this revision can be disposed of with the direction to the court below to expedite disposal of the suit itself as it was once decreed ex parte.

(3.) Counsel also submitted that there was a long delay in filing the application and it was once allowed to be dismissed for default and the application for restoration was filed. But the court below dismissed that application also which was later allowed by this Court. That shows the laches on the part of the respondent in conducting the case. There was no sufficient cause shown for the delay as well.