This revision petition challenges an order allowing restoration of a suit dismissed for default. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the lower court's exercise of discretion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932
CRP.No. 49 of 2011()
-------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2010 IN IA 1250/2010 IN OS.399/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONERS / DEFENDANTS 2 & 3
--------------------------------------------------
1. BETTYLAL PAUL, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.T.U.PAUL, MUKALEL HOUSE MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT THYPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI.P.O ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE
2. BETTEESH PAUL, AGED 29 YEARS, DO..DO..
BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
SRI.SAJU JOSE
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND 1ST DEFENDANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. P.S.JOSEPH, S/O.K.M.SIMON POOZHIKKUNNEL HOUSE PERUMBAIKKADU KARA PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE PIN-686001
2. C.M.JOSEPH, PAZHEMBILLILAYA CEHRUVIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE PIN-686632
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dmb
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
C.R.P.No.49 OF 2011
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011
ORDER
The petitioners, who are defendants 2 and 3 in
O.S.No.399 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the
Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, challenges
the order dated 29th November, 2010 in I.A.No.1250
of 2010, by which the court below allowed the
application under Rule 9 Order IX of the Code of
Civil Procedure and that too on a cost of
Rs.3,000/-.
2. The suit was posted to 18.3.2010. The
plaintiff was working in Bombay. He was not
present before court on that date. The suit was
dismissed for default. He filed application for
restoration of the suit within time. The court
below held that the medical certificate produced by
him could not be relied on. It was held that the
plaintiff has not shown that there was sufficient
C.R.P.No.49 OF 2011 2
cause for his absence on 18.3.2010. However,
taking into account the totality of the
circumstances of the case, the court below allowed
the application on costs of Rs.3000/-. The court
below thought that an opportunity should be
afforded to the plaintiff to prosecute his case on
the merits. There was no delay at all on his part
in making the application. The court below
exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff.
There is no ground to interfere with the exercise
of discretion.
The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the subordinate judge's discretion allowing restoration of a suit dismissed for default.
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the Civil Revision Petition.
Bettylal Paul
Betteesh Paul
P.S. Joseph
K.T. Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court