O R D E R

The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.156/2009 of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. The suit was listed for trial on 04.07.2014, and a day before that, the petitioners filed an application for adjourning the trial of the suit on the premise that two Civil Revision Petitions, the judgment of which will have a definite bearing on the suit, was pending before the High Court. The learned Munsiff refused to adjourn the trial of the suit and the petitioners being absent on 04.07.2014, set them ex parte and later, passed an ex parte decree. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, finding no valid reason to have been stated in the application. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a CMA and the same having been dismissed, filed this revision petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that their application for adjourning the trial of the suit would be allowed and it was under such circumstances that they failed to appear before the Court on 04.07.2014, the day on which the suit was listed for trial. It is submitted that the finding of the trial and appellate courts that the CRPs pending before the High Court has nothing to do with the suit, is factually incorrect. Finally, it is submitted that the Trial Court committed gross illegality in refusing to set aside ex parte decree, thereby denying an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the concurrent orders of the trial and appellate courts warrant no interference, in as much as the petitioners had miserably failed to put forth any valid reason for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is submitted that the CRPs are regarding purchase certificate issued and have nothing to do with the prayer for injunction in the suit.

4. Although no compelling reasons are stated in the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, considering that the petitioners had filed an application for adjourning the trial of the suit prior to the date on which the case was listed for trial, I find some bonafide in the submission that their absence on 04.07.2014 was under the impression that the trial would be adjourned to another date. Being so, I deem it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the suit on merits. At the same time, there having occurred latches on the part of the petitioners, which resulted in the impugned order being passed, the same can be set aside only on terms.

In the result, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, subject to the petitioners paying Rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent through the Counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court and producing the receipt as evidence of such payment along with certified copy of this judgment before the Munsiff Court, within one month. If the petitioners comply with the above direction, O.S.No.156 of 2009 will stand restored to the files of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. Taking into account the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, the learned Munsiff shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the suit within six months of its restoration.