IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6761 of 2008(E) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1811/2007 IN OS.385/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- OMANA, W/O.RAGHAVAN, KUZHIMALAYIL, MARUVANTHURUTHU P.O., KULASEKHARA MANGALAM, VAIKOM (SINCE THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF DIED, PETITIONER WAS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.198/2004) BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.SUDHEESH.A. SMT.M.V.SAVEENA RESPONDENT: ----------------------- SOMANATHAN, SMITHA BHAVAN, NADUVILA VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 6761 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order passed by the Munsiff, Vaikom in I.A.1811/07 in I.A.788/07 in O.S.385/03. A perusal of the record would show that the suit was dismissed for default on 8.3.2007. An application for restoration was filed as I.A.788/07 on 14.6.2007. The learned Munsiff disposed of the matter as follows. “The petition is not pressed. Petitioner's counsel endorsed on the petition. I.A. dismissed as not pressed.” 2. The grievance of the plaintiff is that she had not given any advice to the lawyer to make such an endorsement and it was without her consent such an endorsement is made and therefore the said order is liable to be set aside. For the said purpose she moved I.A.1811/07 which also met with dismissal. When an application is dismissed as not pressed and the contention of the party is that no such advice has been given to the lawyer certainly it is a matter which W.P.C 6761 OF 2008 -:2:- requires evidence for consideration by the Court below. Unfortunately evidence was not let in and therefore the Court dismissed that application as well. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the lawyer should have advised his client to let in evidence and for the laches on the part of the lawyer a client need not be penalized. I do not want to elaborate on that but at the same time I feel that in the interest of justice an opportunity can be given to the petitioner therein to adduce evidence in support of her contentions in the application. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and I.A.811/07 is restored and the petitioner therein is permitted to adduce evidence in support of her contentions and the Court below to dispose of the matter after allowing the other side also to adduce evidence. Since I am disposing of the matter at the admission stage itself the Court shall give notice to the defendant before finally proceeding with the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-