IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 753 of 2011(O) I.A.NO.1842/2009 IN O.S.NO.85/09 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA. PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------- SIMON GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS, GEORGE VILLA,MUKKOLA.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL. RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. THAMPI GEORGE, THUNDU PARAMBIL NEHA COTTAGE, MANJADITHARA MURI, BHARANICKAVU-690541. 2. SHEENA GEORGE, D/O. THAMPI GEORGE, -DO-DO- 3. SHIBU PHILIP, S/O. M.D.PHILIP, HOUSE NO.21/II, VILLA KOICKAL, NEAR MARKET, PATHARAM, ERAVICHIRA, SOORANADU-690522. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 753 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.85 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mavelikkara. It would appear that the third defendant was not served with summons. The case was posted to 29.10.2009. On that day there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also absent. The court below dismissed the suit for default on the ground that no steps were taken for service of summons to the third defendant. On the next day, namely, on 30.10.2009, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1842 of 2009 for restoration of the suit. It is stated that the respondents have not filed any objection to I.A.No.1842 of 2009. The application is posted to 21.6.2011. 2. The prayer in the Original Petition is to issue a direction to the Sub Court, Mavelikkara to dispose of I.A.No.1842 of 2009 expeditiously. O.P.(C) NO.753 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. I do not think that notice is required to be issued to the respondents in this Original Petition. The third respondent, who is the third defendant in the suit, was not served with summons and that was the reason why the suit was dismissed for default. In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Original Petition, notice to respondents 1 and 2 is also not required. 4. The petitioner has filed the application for restoration of the suit immediately after the suit was dismissed for default. The application was filed on 30.10.2009. Even now the application remains undisposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned Subordinate Judge of Mavelikkara to dispose of I.A.No.1842 of 2009 in O.S.No.85 of 2009 expeditiously and, at any rate, before 31.3.2011. I.A.No.1842 of 2009 which is posted to 21.6.2011, shall be advanced after notice to the counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2. It is made clear O.P.(C) NO.753 OF 2011 :: 3 :: that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of I.A.No.1842 of 2009. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/