IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 881 of 2006() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/01/2006 IN IA 2584/04 & 3788/05 IN OS.46/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. K.R.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, KARALIL VEEDU, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA. 2. K.GOVINDA PILLAI, KARALIL VEEDU, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA. 3. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KARALIL VEEDU, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA. 4. K.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KARALIL VEEDU, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA. BY ADV. SRI.N.VIMALAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. SOUTHERN RAILWAYS REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS-3. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIONS) SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (DOUBLING) KOLLAM - KAYAMKULAM, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 881 OF 2006 (F) ---------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.46 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. The suit was filed for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for recovery. The suit was originally dismissed for default on 30-1-2004. The dismissal is for non-appearance of the counsel and party. I.A.No.829 of 2004 was filed by the revision petitioners to restore the suit to file. That application was also dismissed on 3-7-2004 for default finding that there is no appearance of the counsel or the party. Then, plaintiffs filed another I.A. No.2584 of 2004 for restoring the earlier restoration application. That was also dismissed on 13-1-2006 for non- appearance. The petition for condonation of delay in filing C.R.P.No.881 of 2006 - 2 - I.A.No.2584 of 2004 was also dismissed along with I.A.No.2584 of 2004. The court below noticed that the delay petition was also not prosecuted by adducing any evidence explaining satisfactory reasons for condoning the delay. The court below therefore, rightly held that I.A.No.3788 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed and I.A.No.2584 of 2004 is barred by limitation. 2. Going by the facts of the case, it is clear that the plaintiffs or their counsel are not interested in prosecuting the case and therefore, this case was kept pending on the file for more than eight years. All the dismissals on different stages are for non-appearance of the party. Even the restoration applications are filed, which are not prosecuted and therefore, ended in dismissed for default. In these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. C.R.P.No.881 of 2006 - 3 - The Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of the suit will not be a bar for the plaintiffs to approach the respondents for transfer of the property involved in the suit in the name of the plaintiffs. Taking into account the humanitarian consideration, the railway shall consider the grievances of plaintiffs and take appropriate decision. The plaintiffs shall file representation stating their grievances within a period of three weeks from today. The railway shall pass orders after affording an opportunity of being heard within a period of three months thereafter. The railway before passing orders shall also hear other affected parties, if any. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE skr