IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.NO. 761 OF 2008() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2008 IN IA 1778/2007 IN OS.84/2003 OF M.C.,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): CR.PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, OOTTUPARA, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE. 2. JOHN JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, VADAKKADATHU HOUSE, OOTTUPARA, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, OOTTUPARA, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE. 2. K.JOHN, S/O.JOSEPH, MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, OOTTUPARA, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT A-5,SREE CHITRA RESIDENTIAL FLATS, STATE MOUNT PALACE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. USHA GICE GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, VIJAYAPURAM ESTATE, PATTAZHI, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR. 4. SUSAN ABRAHAM, W/O.ABRAHAM GEORGE, KADAMPLAVIL HOUSE, THUMPAMON, ADOOR TALUK,NOW RESIDING AT 433 WALNUT STREET, NUTLEY,NJ-07110, USA REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.JOHN,S/O.JOSEPH, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, OOTTUPARA, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.761 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of June, 2010 O R D E R Respondents sued petitioners in the court of learned Munsiff, Pathanamthitta for declaration of title and possession claimed by them in the suit property and for a decree for prohibitory injunction. That suit was resisted by petitioners contending that respondents have no right over the property and that the suit is mischievous. Suit was dismissed on 16.07.2007 for absence of respondents and their counsel. On 30.03.2008 respondents through respondent No.1 filed application for restoration of the suit stating that respondent No.1 was abroad during the relevant time and he could not be present in the court on the relevant day. Application was opposed by petitioners contending that there is no good cause shown by respondents to restore the suit. Learned Munsiff considered the objections and though was of opinion that affidavit in support of the application for restoration does not state reason for absence of respondent No.2 onwards being not present in court, was inclined to allow the application on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioners. Accordingly learned Munsiff C.R.P. No.761 of 2008 -: 2 :- allowed the application to restore the suit. That order is under challenge in this Revision Petition. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the suit itself is an abuse of process of the court as found by the learned Munsiff while disposing of application for temporary injunction which indicated lack of bonafides and interest in the litigation. Counsel contends that application is only to be dismissed. 2. It is true that while disposing of the application for temporary injunction learned Munsiff made certain observations concerning the bonafides of the application. But those observations have to be confined to the disposal of application for temporary injunction. That cannot in any way affect merit of the suit which is to be decided after trial. It is also true that there is no explanation for absence of respondent No.2 onwards when the case was taken up on 16.07.2007. Application for restoration is filed by respondent No.1 on behalf of other respondents also wherein he stated that he was abroad during the relevant time. It is seen from the order under challenge that learned Munsiff has taken note of that circumstance as well and was inclined to think that respondents must be given an opportunity to contest the case on merit. This Court in revision is not sitting in appeal over C.R.P. No.761 of 2008 -: 3 :- decision of the court below. Jurisdiction of revisional court is supervisory in character and only when there is a patent illegality or gross injustice committed by the court below it required correction by revisional court. Having regard to the circumstances stated I do not think that the court below has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, committed any illegality or gross injustice calling for interference by this Court in revision. I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. Interlocutory Application Nos.2325 of 2008 and 280 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv