IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 441 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/04/2008 IN IA 1761/2007 IN OS.24/2004 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 5TH DEFENDANT: ---------------------- SASIKUMAR, S/O.DAMODARAN, THENNASSERIPARAMBIL, TIRUR TALUK, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4: ----------------- 1. C.R.OMANA, D/O.CHARUVILAYIL RAGHAVAN, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM. 2. DAMODARAN, S/O.KELU, THENNASSERI PARAMBIL, TIRUR TALUK, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM. 3. DEVAKI, D/O.KUTTIMAN, VAYALAPARAMBIL, TIRUR TALUK, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM. 4. INDULEKHA, D/O.DAMODARAN, THENNASSERIPARAMBIL, TIRUR TALUK, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM. 5. AMBILI, D/O.DAMODARAN, THENNASSERIPARAMBIL, TIRUR TALUK, KOTTAKKAL AMSOM DESOM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.441 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th June, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is the 5th defendant in I.A.No.1761/2007 in O.S.No.24/2004, on the file of Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. It was an application filed under Rule 9 of Order IX of Code of Civil Procedure. This petition is filed challenging the order, dated 11.4.2008, where under the said petition was allowed and suit was restored to file. The case of the petitioner is that learned Munsiff should not have restored the suit as valid and sufficient reasons are not shown. The impugned order shows that suit was dismissed for default on the day when the suit was included in the special list. Thereafter, plaintiff filed I.A.No.1761/2007 to restore the suit. Learned Munsiff, after taking into consideration evidence of respondent as PW.1 and the Doctor who issued Ext.A1 medical certificate as PW.2, found that there is sufficient cause for the failure of the petitioner to appear and restored the suit. Even though petitioner challenged Ext.A1 medical certificate and the evidence of PW.2 on the ground that the first respondent attested a document at Parappanangadi travelling C.R.P.No.441/2008 2 25 Kms., it was not accepted by the learned Munsiff. 2. The learned Senior counsel argued that Munsiff should not have accepted the case of the first respondent that he could not appear and adduce evidence because of illness. It was argued that Ext.A1 cannot be relied on. On going through the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by Munsiff, especially when by that order, trial court has only allowed the plaintiff to have a decision on merit. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.