IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 301 of 2009 ----------------------------- (I.A. 2272/2008 IN OS.NO.179/2006 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR) .................... PETITIONER/ 1ST RESPONDENT/1ST DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHERIYATH RUKHIYA, W/O. LATE AZHUVALAPPIL MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF & OTHER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. AZHUVALAPPIL SHANAVAS, S/O. LATE MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. AZHUVALAPPIL MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O. LATE AZHUVALAPPIL MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 3. AZHUVALAPPIL SUBAIDA, D/O. LATE MUHAMMEKUTTY HAJI, ATHAVANAD AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 4. AZHUVALAPPIL SAJITH, S/O. LATE MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, ATHAVANAD AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 5. AZHUVALAPPIL SANISH, S/O. LATE MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, ATHAVANAD AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 6. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, TIRUR BRANCH, THAZHEPALAM.P.O, TIRUR. C.R.P. NO. 301/2009: 7. MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., VALANCHERRY BRANCH, P.O. VALANCHERRY. 8. MANAGER, VALANCHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MAIN BRANCH, VALANCHERRY. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.301 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.179/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. The above suit was one for partition which was dismissed for default for the non-appearance of the plaintiff on the date of hearing. Plaintiff moved an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to set aside the dismissal and restore the suit to file. Petitioner and the 8th defendant in the suit resisted the petition contending that deliberate latches and culpable negligence of the plaintiff culminated in the dismissal of the suit for default. Learned Sub Judge after having enquiry in the petition and hearing the counsel on both sides ordered for setting aside the dismissal of the suit for default and restoring it to file subject to terms, directing the plaintiff to pay sum of Rs.1,000/- each to the first defendant, present petitioner and the 8th defendant. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in this revision by the first defendant contending that the order passed by the learned Sub Judge is unsustainable in law and facts. C.R.P.No.301 of 2009 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find this court will not be justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Sub Judge in ordering for restoring the suit for dismissal of the suit imposing terms. I find no impropriety in the order passed by the learned sub Judge holding that one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate his case. Whatever inconvenience or difficulty that are likely to be suffered by the contesting respondents are also taken into account by directing the plaintiff to pay cost. The revision is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-