JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed challenging Ext P8 common order passed in IA Nos.1629 and 1630 of 2018 in IA Nos.259 and 261 of 2018 in OS No.953/2013 of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff.

2. The antecedent facts leading to Ext P8 order, in a nutshell, are; the respondent has filed the suit, against the petitioner, seeking a decree for specific performance. The petitioner was set ex parte. Even though he filed IA Nos.259 and 261 of 2018 to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay, the applications were dismissed for default. Then, the petitioner filed IA Nos.1630/2018 and 1629/2018 to restore IA Nos.259 and 261 of 2018 and to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. But, the court below, by the impugned Ext P8 order, dismissed IA Nos.1629 and 1630 of 2018. Ext P8 order is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law.

Hence the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Sreekanth S.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Today, when the original petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that the subject-matter in dispute between the parties has been settled as per Ext P9 compromise petition signed by the parties. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has no objection in ex-parte decree being set aside because the parties propose to file a compromise petition before the court below after the ex-

parte decree is set aside.

5. In the light of the submissions made and the subsequent developments that have transpired, I am inclined to exercise the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and set aside Ext P8 order, which would do complete justice to both sides.

In the result, I allow the original petition in the following manner:

i) Ext P8 order is set aside.

ii) IA Nos.1629 and 1630 of 2018 are allowed.

iii) IA Nos.259 and 261 of 2018 are allowed.

iv) The ex-parte decree passed against the petitioner in OS No.953/2013 is set aside.

v) The parties are directed to appear before the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad, on 27.2.2023 in order to file Ext P9 compromise petition before the court below and get the suit disposed of by way of compromise.

vi) The court below shall, if the compromise petition is filed, dispose of the suit, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

SD/-

sks/8.2.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2103/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.259/2018 DATED

10/1/2018 To SET EXPARTY FILED BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.261/2018 DATED

10/1/2018 TO CONDONE DELAY FILED BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1630/2018 DATED

28/3/2018 TO RESTORE THE APPLICATION TO SET EXPARTY ORDER FILED BY PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT O.S.NO.953/2013 FILED BY RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.458/2013 DATED

18/02/2013 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER'S WIFE VIJAYAKUMARI.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03/04/2018 IN O.P.(C) NO.969/2018.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 04/08/2018 IN I.A.NO.1629/2018 AND I.A.NO.1630/2018 IN I.A.NO.259/2018 AND I.A.NO.261/2018 IN OS NO.953/2013.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1629/2018 DATED

28/3/2018 TO CONDONE DELAY OF RESTORATION APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER.