IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 F.A.O.No. 344 of 2009() --------------------- I.A.32/2007 in AS.55/2005 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT/APPELLANT: --------------------------------------------- NILESHWAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NILESHWAR P.O., NILESHWAR, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY MR.T.K.VIPINDAS, ADVOCATE MR.SREEVINAYAKAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- N.JANARDHANAN, S/O.LATE N.GOPALAN, RESIDING NEAR NEHRU ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, PADNEKKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY MR.JAWAHAR JOSE, ADVOCATE THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: F.A.O.No.344/2009 I.A.4657/2009 IN F.A.O.No.344/2009 DISMISSED. Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE 07/01/2010 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN,J =========================== F.A.O.No.344 of 2009 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg, in I.A.32/2007 in A.S.55/2005. It was an application filed to set aside the order of dismissal and rehearing the appeal on merits. The learned Subordinate Judge considered the matter and held that the doctor has not been examined and evidence had not been adduced and so the case of illness of the appellant is not proved and therefore dismissed the petition. When the appeal is filed the onerous duty is more on the lawyer rather than on the client. The Principles of Natural Justice always demands that the matter shall be disposed of, as far as possible, on merits. In the judgment of this Court reported in Sreedhara Kurup v. Mickel (1968 KLT 599), the learned Judge held that unless there is gross negligence or grave misconduct the opportunity of being heard shall not be denied. Here, the applicant has moved the court well in time and had attempted to substantiate the same with some materials which would indicate that there was no F.A.O.No.344/2009 2 gross negligence or grave misconduct. Further the appellant is an establishment and it will have its normal delay and other things. Therefore, in the Interest of Justice, I am inclined to grant an opportunity for rehearing and therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the learned Subordinate Judge is directed to restore the appeal and dispose the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the court closed for summer vacation in 2010. The matter is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs