K.N. GOPAKUMAR Vs. KUMARI MINI AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The family court passed a decree against the appellant directing him to pay maintenance to respondents 1 and 2 at the monthly rate of Rs 1,000/- each and also to return the money and gold ornaments of the first respondent. It was an ex parte decree. The appellant filed an application under order 9 rule 13 of CPC to get the ex parte decree set aside. The application was dismissed by the family court. The present appeal is filed against the said dismissal.

(2.) The appellant contended that an ex parte decree happened to be passed against him as he was not informed of the posting dates of the case. It was alleged that the appellant's counsel's clerk by name K.V.Sreekumar did not note the postings of the case in the diary maintained by him. It was also alleged that the service of the said clerk was terminated by the counsel. The appellant sought to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he was not informed of the postings of the case by his counsel in the circumstances mentioned above.

(3.) The respondents opposed the application of the appellant. They contended that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was also contended that the ground taken to get the ex parte decree set aside was not a legal ground.