IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 114 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2008 IN IA.2157/2008 IN OS.300/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT:PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- S.WILSON,WILLS GARDEN,NEENDAKARA MURI, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------- PRIYAMVADA,D/O.LEKSHMI, SEA GIFT (PRABHA NIVAS), VELITHURUTHU,NEENDAKARA,KOLLAM. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 114 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Plaintiff is the appellant. On the appointed day, he was absent and the suit was dismissed. He filed an application for restoration along with the petition for condonation of delay. Respondent filed a counter affidavit. The application was eventually dismissed. Subsequently the present applications are filed. The court below had gone into the matter and found that the date on which the affidavit was alleged to have been sworn before the Advocate, actually the party was abroad. Passport was produced and perused by the court. It shows that the appellant was abroad on 28.6.2008. As a matter of fact very serious action could have been taken by the court below. But the court below only dismissed the application. F.A.O. 114/2009. 2 We do not find any reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.