IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 2 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2009 IN IA 3146/2009 IN OS.397/2008 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVN. PETITIONER:RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------- K.CHITHRA, D/O.M.N.PADMANABHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KOTTAPPARAMBATH VEEDU, KARUVISSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. MR. T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR. PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH MR. K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR MS. VANDANA MENON MS. ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENTS:PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. KOTTAPPARAMBATH SREEDHARAN, S/O.KUTTOOLI, AGED 72 YEARS, KARUVISSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KOTTAPPARAMBATH BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUTTOOLI, AGED 69 YEARS, KIZHAKETHODI, -DO- -DO- 3. KOTTAPPARAMBATH GOURI, D/O.KUTTOOLI, AGED 65 YEARS, MEENCHANDA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. KOTTAPPARAMBATH RADHA, D/O.KUTTOOLI, AGED 61 YEARS, KARUVISSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK C.R.P. NO. 2/2010 : 2 : 5. KOTTAPARAMBATH NANU, S/O.KUTTOOLI, AGED 66 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 6. KOTTAPARAMBATH ASHOKAN, S/O.KUTTOOLI, AGED 51 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 7. KOTTAPARAMBATH PREMALATHA, D/O.KUTTOOLI, AGED 48 YEARS, KODUVALLY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 8. KOTTAPARAMBATH VASANTHA, D/O.DAMODHARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, BHARGAVI NILAYAM, KUNDOOPARAMBA AMSOM, MEKAVOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 9. KOTTAPARAMBATH ANEER, D/O.DAMODHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KUNDOOPARAMBA AMSOM, -DO- -DO- 10. KOTTAPARAMBATH PRAMEER, S/O.DAMODHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, -DO- -DO- ADV. MR. NIRMAL. S for R1 TO R10 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No. 2 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. ORDER The defendant in O.S. No. 397 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court-I, Kozhikode is the revision petitioner. The said suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title filed by the respondents herein. When the suit was listed for trial, the plaintiffs did not turn up before the court and the suit was dismissed for default. An application filed as I.A No. 3146 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C was allowed on terms directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.750/- as costs. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision petition. 2. I heard both sides. 3. In as much as the court below was inclined to entertain the application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C and allowed the same on costs, this Court will be loath to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below. C.R.P. No. 2/2010 : 2 : The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that there is an earlier litigation in the matter and that was fought up to this Court and the plaintiff's suit for injunction was concurrently dismissed by the court. It is thereafter that the present suit for recovery of possession on title is filed. He, therefore, prays for an early disposal of the suit since it was at a time when the suit was listed for trial that it was dismissed for default. Having regard to the submission made at the bar, I see no reason why the present prayer should not be granted. The court below shall list the suit for trial at the earliest and dispose of the same expeditiously and at any rate within two months of listing the suit. This revision petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv C.R.P. No. 2/2010 : 3 :