IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 232 of 2009() -------------------------------- CMA.18/2006 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM I.A. NO.262/2005 IN OS.33/2000 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,MANNARKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF ------------------------------- SHANMUGHA KOUNDER BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PERIYA SWAMI, S/O.APPACHI GOUNDER, SHOLALYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRIT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SHOLAYUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.NO.232 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The revision is filed against the concurrent finding entered by two inferior courts that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out sufficient cause for restoration of his suit, which was dismissed for default. Petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.33/2000 before the Munsiff - Magistrate's Court, Mannarkkad, seeking a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the State and two of its public officers in respect of a property having an extent of 15 acres. On the date when the case was listed for trial, plaintiff was absent, consequently the suit was dismissed. In the enquiry on the application filed for restoring the suit with a certificate under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, no evidence was adduced to show sufficient cause for restoration of the suit other than tendering a medical certificate. The learned Munsiff not being satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the non appearance of the CRP.232/09 2 plaintiff on the date when the case was posted for hearing, dismissed that application. Against the dismissal of that application, the plaintiff preferred an appeal as C.M.A.No.18/2006 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. The learned Sub Judge, after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, concurred with the view taken by the learned Munsiff that the plaintiff has not made out sufficient cause for his absence on the date of hearing of the suit. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of the order/judgment passed by the two courts below, this revision is filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. It is submitted that the reasons set out by both the courts below for non acceptance of the medical certificate are not correct and that the application for restoration was filed within a period of six weeks after dismissal of the suit. I find the circumstances canvassed by the court to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the two courts below are not sufficient for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under CRP.232/09 3 Section 115 of the CPC. I find no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Munsiff and also the learned Sub Judge in holding that the plaintiff has not made out sufficient cause for restoring the suit. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009