IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 2388 of 2000(D) ----------------------- CMA.162/1998 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.1303/1996 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR (IA. 2013 /1998) .................... PETITIONER(S)IN CRP: APPELLANTS IN CMA:PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 AND 7 TO 12 IN I.A.: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O.AINICKAL PORINCHU, KODAKARA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. MARIYAM, W/O. AINICKAL RAPPAI, OLLUR DESOM, EDAKUNNI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. FRANCIS, S/O..DO...IN ..DO...DO.... 4. MATHAI, S/O. DO....IN DO...DO..... 5. AMMINI, W/O.MUTHUPEEDIKA LONAPPAN, MANNAMPETTA. 6. JINCY, D/O. KANJIRATHINGAL JOHNY, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 7. JAISON, S/O..DO......IN ...DO...DO.... 8. JOBY, S/O. ..DO... IN ...DO...DO..... 9. ELIAKUTTY, W/O. AINICKAL ANTONY, EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 10. GEORGE, S/O...DO..IN ...DO...DO.... 11. FRANCIS, S/O...DO...IN ...DO..DO.... BY MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.SMT.M.M.TEENA, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN. Kss ..2/- ...2.... CRP.NO.2388/2000 RESPONDENT(S): 1 TO 3 IN CRP:RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN CMA: RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN I.A: RESPONDENT NO.4 IN CRP: RESPONDENT NO.4 IN CMA: PETITIONER NO.6 IN IA: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ROSILY, D/O. AINICKAL PORINCHU'S CHACHAMMA, EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE, DESOM, TRICHUR TALUK. 2. VERONICKA, D/O. DO...IN ...DO..DO.... 3. ANTHONY, SON OF CHIRAMMEL PATHROSE, IN ..DO..DO.... 4. KOCHAPPU, RESIDING AT OLLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. R1 BY ADV. MR. JIJO PAUL R4 BY ADV. MR.HARISH R. MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.2388 of 2000 - D --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1303 of 1996 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit was one for putting up boundary and in view of the absence of the plaintiffs on the day when the case was listed for trial on 17.2.1998, suit was dismissed for default. An application moved by the plaintiffs to restore the suit setting forth a case that on account of a compromise talk between the parties the plaintiffs did not appear on the listed day was found unacceptable to the court with the result the restoration application was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the order dismissing the application moved under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed by the learned District Judge holding that the appellants/plaintiffs have not shown sufficient cause for restoring the suit. It was further observed, after examining the rival contentions that the remedy of the appellants/plaintiffs was to file a suit for partition. Propriety and correctness of the judgment C.R.P.No.2388 of 2000 - D 2 rendered by the appellate court as above in C.M.A.No.162 of 1998 is challenged in the revision. 2. After hearing the counsel on both sides, I find no reason for interfering with the concurrent decision rendered by the two inferior courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken exception to some of the observations made in the judgment rendered by the appellate court contending that they are against the facts involved. Whatever that be, as the question involved in the proceedings is only whether the revision petitioners have made out sufficient cause for restoration of the suit and that alone, it is needless to say that if they have any other right under law to institute any fresh suit, the observations will not be a bar for institution of such suit, as provided by law. Revision is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-