IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 91 of 2005() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2003 IN IA.912/2002 IN OS.64/1997 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------- THATTANKANDIYIL KUNHAMMAD, S/O.MOOS, AGED 57 YEARS, ERAMALA AMSOM, KARTHIKAPPALLI DESOM (P.O) KARTHIKAPPALLY, (VIA) VILLIAPPALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: --------------------- NARAKKOTTU KADARKUTTY, S/O.USSAINKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, CHANGAROTH AMSOM, AVADUKKA DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O. No.91 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is one for recovery of money. The case was originally posted for trial by including in the special list on 13.7.2000. On that day, the suit was dismissed since the plaintiff's counsel submitted no instruction and the plaintiff was also absent. Then that was restored and he was directed to take steps. The case was again listed for trial on 8.1.2001. On that day, plaintiff filed a petition to send the disputed documents for expert's opinion. Hence, the case was removed from the list and he was given sufficient time to take steps. Experts wanted deficit amount to be remitted, but the plaintiff did not remit the same. Again, the case was listed to 1.10.2002. Though the petitioner wanted to advance the hearing, that was not allowed and the case was taken up on 1.10.2002 itself. On that also, he absented himself F.A.O.No.91 of 2005 2 from appearing. The counsel was also absent. Hence, the suit was dismissed. Then, he filed an application for restoration stating that his wife was admitted in the hospital and he was attending her and hence he could not appear before the court below on 1.10.2002. No medical certificate was also produced. As a matter of fact, when the matter was posted for evidence, he again absented himself. The court below, in such circumstances, dismissed the petition for restoration. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred. We have perused the order. Considering the factual situation as stated above, we do not think, the appellant is entitled for any relief in this appeal, as the appeal itself is devoid of any merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.