IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 160 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NOS.1410 & 1411/2009 IN CMA.113/2006 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.1689/2004 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ARJUN AMARAVATHY CHITS PVT. LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 12 DESIKAR STREET VADAPALANI, CHENNAI-600 026. 2. ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS PVT. LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 12 DESIKAR STREET REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.RADHAKRISHNAN. 3. ARJUN AMARAVATHI CHITS PVT. LTD., CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM 3, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER MR..P.MADHAVANKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAJENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANNAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.160/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CMA.113/2006 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ALONG WITH IMPUGNED ORDER EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.1410/2009 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.1411/2009 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IA NO.7318/2009 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 1410/2009 DATED 1.12.2009 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.111/2009 DATED 1.12.2009 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.160 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Respondent sued petitioners for recovery of money in O.S.No.1689 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Ernakulam. In the course of the suit respondent filed application to compel production of certain documents stated to be in the custody of the petitioners. Though petitioners preferred an objection, learned Additional Munsiff rejected that objection and directed petitioners to produce the said documents. On petitioners not producing the documents respondent filed application under Order 11 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure to strike off the defence of petitioners. Learned Munsiff allowed that application and accordingly defence of the petitioners has been struck off. Challenging that, petitioners preferred C.M.A.No.113 of 2006 in the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam. That appeal was posted for hearing on 29.11.2008 on which day counsel for petitioners could not reach the court on time, according to the learned counsel for petitioners since he was held up due to traffic block. The appeal ended in a dismissal for default. On 19.02.2009 petitioners filed I.A.No.1411 of 2009 for restoration of the C.M.Appeal and I.A.No.1410 of 2009 for condonation of the delay (stated to be 49 days) in filing I.A.No.1411 of 2009. It was pointed out that the delay involved is actually 51 days and not 49 days as stated in I.A.No.1410 of 2009. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed I.A.Nos.1410 and 2009 and 1411 of 2009 WP(C) No.160/2010 2 stating that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay and restore the C.M.Appeal dismissed for default. Exts.P5 and P6, orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that failure of counsel for petitioner to appear in the appellate court on 29.11.2008 and the delay in filing application for restoration has been properly explained but it was not appreciated by the learned Additional District Judge. According to the learned counsel for respondent no sufficient reason has been stated for condonation of delay. Even if it is assumed that the manager of petitioner No.3 was away in connection with the business petitioner Nos.2 and 3 could have filed the application for restoration within time. 2. The C.M.Appeal was dismissed for absence of petitioners and counsel on 29.11.2008. That is sought to be explained by stating that the counsel was held up due to traffic block. It is true that application for restoration was filed only on 19.02.2009 but that is accompanied I.A.No.1410 of 2009 for condonation of the delay. The reason stated for the delay is that the manager of petitioner No.3 who has sworn the affidavit in support of the applications was away in connection with employment. Learned counsel for petitioners stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were in Madras at the relevant time and could not file the applications. 3. It is settled position of law as revealed by various authoritative pronouncements that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should be given a liberal interpretation to advance the cause of justice. If there is not something equivalent to contumacious negligence or laches on the part of party applying for restoration court must allow the application so that the party gets an WP(C) No.160/2010 3 opportunity to challenge the order on its merit. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that the delay has been properly and sufficiently explained. Resultantly Exts.P5 and P6, orders dismissing I.A. Nos.1410 of 2009 and 1411 of 2009 are set aside and those applications are allowed. Learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam shall, consequent to the above order restore C.M.A.No.113 of 2006 to the file of that court and dispose of the same on merit after hearing counsel on both sides. Parties shall appear before learned Additional District Judge-I on 21.07.2010. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks