Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50288
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.HARIPRASAD, J
DEEPU RAVI – Appellant
Versus
MAMMEN MATHEW – Respondent
OP (CIVIL) 2231/2017
The ruling underscores the necessity for courts to ensure that defendants have a fair opportunity to participate in proceedings, particularly in cases of ex parte decrees.
Headnote:
Judgment - Defamation - Execution of Decree List - The court's decision focused on procedural issues related to a defamation suit where the defendants sought to set aside an ex parte decree, emphasizing the need for fair process and timely resolution of pending applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, defendants in a defamation suit, became aware of the suit only upon receiving notice for an execution petition. They filed applications to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone delay, which were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the applications pending in the District Court and found it unnecessary to issue notice to the respondents, directing that those interlocutory applications be disposed of expeditiously.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could have the ex parte decree set aside and whether the delay in their application could be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of allowing the petitioners a fair opportunity to contest the decree, maintaining that procedural justice should prevail, especially when the awareness of the suit was only upon execution notice.
Final Decision: The original petition is allowed with directions for the District Court to expedite the pending applications.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Petitioners are defendants 5 and 6 in O.S No.523 of
2014 filed before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. Ext.P1 is copy of the plaint. The suit is one for damages for defamation and other consequential reliefs. It was decreed as per Ext.P2. The plaintiffs/decree holders put the decree in execution. It is the case of the petitioners that only when they received notice in the execution petition, they became aware of filing the suit. Stating all the above facts, they preferred two applications before the court below viz; to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone delay. Both applications were dismissed as per Ext.P3 order. It is the submission that Ext.P3 order, challenged in C.M.A No.43 of 2017, is pending before the District Court, Kottayam.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the request in the petition, I do not find any need to issue notice to the respondents to dispose of the petition.
In the result, the original petition is allowed.
The District Court, Kottayam is directed to dispose of the interlocutory applications filed along with C.M.A No.43 of 2017 pending before that court within a period of one month. Till then the execution proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.
