IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 28 of 2010(E) ------------------------------- (THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2455/09 AND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO IT IN C.M.A. NO. 110/09 DATED 19/12/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAYA VINOD,W/O.VINOD,PATTATHUVILA VEEDU,VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE,KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. 2. G.VINOD,S/O.GANGADHARAN,PATTATHUVILA VEEDU,VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE,KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.WILSON URMESE. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- SUVARNA SATHYAN,W/O.SATHYAN, BRAHMAVILASAM,ASHRAMAM,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.RAJA, MR.M.T.SURESHKUMAR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.28 of 2010-E ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd February 2010 Order This Revision Petition is directed against the order in IA No.2455/09 in CMA No.110/09 passed by the District Court, Kollam. The CMA was directed against the orders in IA Nos.3151/09 and 3150/09 in OS No.153/99, which were filed to set aside an ex parte decree and to condone the delay in filing the application, respectively. Both the petitions were dismissed. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal. While filing the appeal also, there was a delay of 8 days and therefore, the petitioner filed IA No.2455/09 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court found that no sufficient reason has been given for condoning the delay and therefore, dismissed the petition. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Court below was not justified in dismissing the petition for condonation of delay and consequently, the CRP No.28/10 2 appeal. The suit was one for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that the promissory note was a fabricated one. It is also pointed out that the second defendant had gone abroad on 12.08.1998 and his wife was residing at Thripoonithura. Various other contentions were also raised by the petitioners to show that the claim made by the respondent is false. It is further pointed out that in fact, they had engaged a counsel and due to the fault on the part of the counsel, they could not keep track with the case. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the suit was decreed in 1999 and at this point of time, the claim of the petitioners cannot easily be accepted. 4. No acceptable reasons have been given in the impugned order as to why the First Appellate Court dismissed the petition for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal. Whatever that be, the Court CRP No.28/10 3 below would have well advised to take the appeal and dispose of it on merits. After all, the petitioners therein were entitled for a hearing of their appeal on merits. There was only 8 days' delay in filing the appeal. True, there was considerable delay in filing the suit. But, the Court below could have taken a lenient view and given the petitioners an opportunity to substantiate their contentions. No harm or injury will be caused to the respondents by doing so. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court feels that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioners to urge their contentions before the First Appellate Court. In the result, this Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to take back CMA No.110/09 and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained herein above, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE CRP No.28/10 4 sta CRP No.28/10 5