IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37806 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ KINATTUNKARA AMBADI, S/O.RAMAN, RESIDING AT KARIAMKODE, PEROLE VILLAGE P.O., CHATHAMATH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), N.H.KANNUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37806 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is under challenge. The petitioner is the claimant in LAR No.145/03 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg. The case was posted for evidence on 9/10/2006. Due to the absence of the claimant and in the absence of any application made on his behalf, the case was dismissed for non prosecution. He filed IA No.1150/06 producing a medical certificate justifying his absence when the case was taken. Evidence was adduced and on considering the application, the court dismissed the IA by Ext.P1 order. It is challenging Ext.P1 the writ petition is filed. 2. Facts stated in the order show that the LAR was included in the special list on 14/11/2005 and in the absence of the claimant, the case was disposed of. Thereafter, on filing IA 145/06, the case was restored to file and was listed to 9/10/2006. On 9/10/2006, again the petitioner was absent and it was therefore that the case was disposed. 3. Irrespective of the background of the case, fact remains that while considering IA No.1150/06, the petitioner had WPC 37806/09 :2 : produced sufficient medical records to justify his absence. However, on an erroneous appreciation of the material available, the Court rejected the application. 4. Having considered the order in its entirety, I should confess my inability to endorse the view taken by the Sub Court. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P1 and direct the Sub Judge to allow IA No.145/06 and direct that LAR 145/2003 be restored to file. 5. However, having regard to the fact that the case was initially disposed on 14/11/2005 in the absence of the claimant and was again disposed for the same reason, which are attributable only to the petitioner and not to the respondents and if the case is to be restored, I think the petitioner should be deprived of interest payable to him for the period from 14/11/2005 till date. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) The Sub Court, Hosdurg will restore LAR No.145/03 on file and dispose of the matter on merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. (2) If the award is one of enhancement, it will be specified WPC 37806/09 :3 : in the award that the claimant will not be entitled to interest for the period from 14/11/2005 till date. (3) Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the Sub Court for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp