IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.NO. 507 OF 2010() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2009 IN IA.2141/2009 IN OPARB.113/2004 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) – PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CPWD, THRISSUR CENTRAL DIVISION, THRISSUR – 680 020. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CPWD, THRISSUR CENTRAL DIVISION, THRISSUR – 680 020. BY ADV. SRI.DENU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S) – RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- K.A. JOSE, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, CHITTILAPPILLY KUNJAPPU, COLLEGE ROAD, ELATHURUTHU P.O., THRISSUR – 680 611. ADV. SRI. RAJIV ABRAHAM GEORGE FOR CAVEATOR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.507 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Respondent appears through counsel. Heard both ides. 2. This revision is in challenge of Annexure-A, order dated 21.07.2010 on I.A. No. 2141 of 2009 in A.O.P. No.113 of 2004 of the court of learned District Judge, Thrissur. Petitioners filed I.A. No.2141 of 2009 to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. According to the petitioners O.P. was posted for hearing on 04.07.2009 on which day counsel for petitioners was absent. Learned District Judge ordered payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to respondent and posted the case on 18.07.2009. That day counsel for petitioner was not able to reach the court on account of traffic block as he had to come from Ernakulam to Thrissur. On account of absence of counsel the O.P. was dismissed on 18.07.2009. The dismissal was sought to be set aside vide I.A. No.2141 of 2009 which did not find favour with learned District Judge. Hence this revision. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that counsel for petitioners has filed affidavit in the court below (copy is Annexure-B) explaining circumstances C.R.P. No.507 of 2010 -: 2 :- under which counsel could not appear in court on 18.07.2009. It is stated that traffic block prevented counsel for petitioners from appearing in court on that day. Hence it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the O.P. may be restored to file. 3. Respondent contends that case was posted for evidence and hearing a number of times and almost on all occasions counsel for petitioners remained absent, counsel for respondent being present. Learned counsel states that it is only on occasions when counsel for petitioners informed counsel for respondent that he is not able to appear in court that counsel for respondent happened to be absent. Learned counsel for respondent has given me a copy of proceedings in A.O.P No.113 of 2004 and as contended by learned counsel it is seen that on so many posting days petitioners were not ready, request was made for adjournment and learned District Judge was granting it until it came to a stage when a further adjournment could not be granted since on 04.07.2009 there was an order for payment of costs of Rs.3,000/ -, case was posted on 18.07.2009 and on that day also counsel for petitioners remained absent. Learned District Judge was left with no other alternative except dismiss the O.P. for default. C.R.P. No.507 of 2010 -: 3 :- 4. True in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of counsel for petitioners it is stated that case was posted for hearing on 18.07.2009, there was some confusion as tenure of Standing Counsel for Central Government had expired and he could not continue on record without specific instruction from the Department concerned. On account of that confusion on the previous posting date counsel for petitioners could not appear. Assuming so it was for the Department to make alternative arrangements for the same so that counsel appeared in the court below. Petitioners have obtained so many adjournments as revealed from the proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to give petitioners an opportunity to prosecute the O.P. but only on heavy terms bearing in mind that the sum of Rs.3,000/- ordered as costs by the learned District Judge has not been paid. Counsel for respondent was going to Thrissur from Ernakulam to attend the court every now and then which involved heavy expense. Considering all these aspects I am inclined to allow this petition on payment of Rs.25,000/- (including the costs of Rs.3,000/- ordered by the learned District Judge) to respondent within a period of one month from this day. Resultantly, this revision is disposed of in the following lines: C.R.P. No.507 of 2010 -: 4 :- (i) Revision petition will stand allowed, order on I.A. No.2141 of 2009 set aside and that application stand allowed on condition that petitioners pay to the counsel for respondent Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as costs within one month from this day and filed a statement in the court of learned District Judge Thrissur within the said period of one month which contains acknowledgment by counsel for respondent. (ii) In case the aforesaid direction is not complied revision petition will stand dismissed in confirmation of the impugned order. (iii) In case costs is paid within the said period and statement is filed the impugned order will stand set aside and A.O.P. No.113 of 2004 restored to file. In that event learned District Judge, Thrissur shall dispose of the O.P. as expeditiously as possible. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv