IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 CRP.No. 137 of 2011() --------------------- OPEL.48/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------- 1. RAVINDRAN, S/O. PACHUKUTTY, THYKKUNI HOUSE, PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. KUNJAMMA, W/O. RAVINDRAN, THYKKUNI HOUSE PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-673576. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, T.C.SUB DIVISION, KANIYAMBETTA, VYTHIRI P.O. VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN - 695004 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ C.R.P.No.137 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 ORDER The petitioners filed OP (Electricity) No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Wayanad claiming enhanced compensation for the trees cut and removed from the property of the petitioner for drawing of the electricity line. The petitioners also claimed compensation on account of diminution of land value. 2. In paragraph 5 of the memorandum of revision it is stated as follows: “5. The respondent on their appearance filed their counter statement. The matter was posted for evidence during the month of December, 2008. In order to prove the case of the petitioners the 2nd petitioner herein was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked through her. Ext.C1 commission report and Ext.C2 commissioner's sketch were marked as court exhibits. On the side of the defense no evidence was adduced. The PW1 C.R.P.No.137 OF 2011 2 filed her proof affidavit in view of chief examination as early as on 25.8.2008 and she was cross examined on 12.1.2009. Since there was no defense evidence the matter was posted for hearing and the matter was finally heard on 15.7.2009 and the matter was posted for orders. Thereafter the above matter was posted for orders to 28.7.2009, 7.8.2009, 10.8.2009, 18.8.2009, 24.8.2009, 9.9.2009, 17.9.2009, 24.9.2009, 30.9.2009, 12.10.2009, 15.10.2009, 28.10.2009, 31.10.2009, 6.11.2009, 13.11.2009, 20.11.2009, 26.11.2009, 3.12.2009, 10.12.2009, 21.12.2009, 5.1.2010, 22.1.2010, 30.1.2010, 8.2.2010, 17.2.2010, 25.2.2010, and to 3.3.2010, on 3.3.2010 the endorsement was that it is posted for hearing to 10.3.2010 thereafter it is adjourned to 20.3.2010, 24.3.2010, 7.4.2010, 9.4.2010, 17.5.2010, 27.5.2010, 31.5.2010, 10.6.2010, 17.6.2010, 21.6.2010, 29.6.2010, and to 8.7.2010, on 8.7.2010 the matter was adjourned for filing calculation statement by both sides to 20.7.2010, 27.7.2010, 30.7.2010, 4.8.2010, 10.8.2010, 30.8.2010, 4.9.2010, 17.9.2010, 30.9.2010, 18.10.2010, and to 25.10.2010. On 25.10.2010 the respondents filed a petition as I.A.No.422 of 2010 raising the question of jurisdiction. The above I.A. was posted for hearing to 18.11.2010 and it was dismissed on the same day. Thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence to 17.12.2010. Since the petitioners were under the impression that the matter is being posted for orders for a quite long period of time even without calling the matter in the roll call the petitioners bonafide C.R.P.No.137 OF 2011 3 believed that the matter was posted for orders and there was no representation on 17.12.2010. On 17.12.2010 it was adjourned to 10.1.2011 and the matter was dismissed for default vide order dated 10.1.2011.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the court below should not have dismissed the Original Petition for default and the Original Petition should have been disposed of on the merits. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that respondents do not oppose the prayer for disposal of the Original Petition on the merits. At the same time, the Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners should not be allowed to protract the proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 10.1.2011 passed by the court below is C.R.P.No.137 OF 2011 4 set aside. The court below shall consider the Original Petition on the merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. The petitioners undertake that they will not make any request for adjournment of the case. The Civil Revision petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms