Pareed Pillay, C.J.

Appellant who is the plaintiff in O. S.72 of 1987 of the Additional Sub Court, Alleppey challenges the order in I.A.724 of 1988. The Interlocutory Application was filed by the respondent (defendant) under O.9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside exparte judgment and decree. The application was allowed by the trial court on payment, of costs Rs.100/-.

2. Contention of the plaintiff is that the interlocutory application under O.9 Rule 13 is not maintainable as decree was granted in its favour under O. 8, R.10 C.P.C. on the failure of the defendant to file its written statement. It is contended that as the defendant was not declared ex parte and as the decree has been granted as aforesaid the interlocutory application was not legally maintainable and the only course open to the defendant was to have filed appeal before the proper court.

3. On 24-5-1988 the suit for realisation of money was decreed. On previous occasions the trial court granted time to the defendant to file written statement. On 24-5-1988 defendant's counsel applied for time. That was vehemently opposed by the plaintiffs counsel. The Sub judge did not grant further time and he pronounced the judgmen