Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE29H DAYOF JANUARY20149TH MAGHA, 1935 CRP.No. 744 of 2013 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN CMA532012 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA DATED3009-2013 I.A. NO. 1986/2011 IN O.S. NO. 630/2001 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/8TH DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAJITH, AGED20YEARS S/O.VALSAN, KARAKATTU VEEDU, MAVADY PUTHOOR WEST MURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJU,, AGED48YEARS S/O.PARAMU, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK691506.
2. SARASWATHY,,AGED41YEARS W/O.RAJU, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 691 506.
3. CHELLAPPAN,, AGED81YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK691506.
4. SAKUNTHALA,, AGED40YEARS D/O.THANKAMMA, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK691506.
5. SASIDHARAN,, AGED55YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK691506. CRP NO. 744/2013 6. YESODHARAN, AGED45YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK691506.
7. PANKAJAKSHAN,, AGED43YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK691506.
8. RADHAKRISHNAN,, AGED41YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KOCHUKANJIRAMVILA, POOVATTOOR EAST, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK691506.
9. VALSON, AGED51YEARS KULATHINKARA VEEDU, IKKADU, CHANDANAPPALLY.P.O CHANDANAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA689 645. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2901-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 744 OF2013------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2014 ORDER
The courts below have concurrently refused to set aside the ex-parte decree in a suit for declaration of title and possession and for fixation of boundaries. The courts below have noticed that the ex-parte decree was passed as early as on 02.01.2006 whereas an application to set aside the same was filed only on 02.07.2011. The contention of the petitioner was that he was a minor and that his father did not properly represent his interest in the suit. The trial court has in this regard observed in paragraph 8 of the order as follows: "8. In this case upon perusing the case bundle it is found that 7th defendant represented the 8th defendant minor as his father in this case. He has filed written statement also represented the 8th defendant as his father and guardian. 7th defendant has contested the suit for himself and for and on behalf of the 8th minor till the date of trial. There are other defendants also in the suit. Hence I finds the 7th defendant was properly represented by the 8th defendant minor, as his father in the suit." 2 CRP No. 744/2013 2. The application to set aside the ex-parte decree is also bereft of necessary details as has been concurrently noticed by the courts below. The records in the suit revealed that the petitioner would have attained majority in the year 2008 and no explanation at all has been given for the inordinate delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The petitioner has after all a fractional right in the property and all other defendants have not chosen to contest the suit or set aside the ex-parte decree. Added to this is the fact that there is yet another decree in O.S. No. 270/2001 between the parties wherein the controversy has been finally decided. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the orders impugned warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd