IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2319 of 2010(O) ------------------------- E.As NO. 18 OF 2010 AND 34/2010 IN E.A. NO. 688 OF 2009 & E.A. NO.691 IN E.P. NO. 113/2006, IN O.S. NO. 402 OF 1979 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S): --------------- VELAN, S/O.KARUPPANAYAKKAN, PUTHENTHOTTAM, NENMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THILLA, W/O.KUNJU, ORUVILAKALAM, CHATHAMANGALAM POST, NENMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. PANKAJAKSHAN, S/O.KUNJU, DO. DO. 3. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJU, DO. DO. 4. SANTHA, D/O.KUNJU, DO. DO. 5. SURESH BABU, S/O.KUNJU, DO. DO. 6. VASU, HUSBAND OF SAVITHRI, DO. DO. ADVS. M/S. .V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R1 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P. (c ) No. 2319 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 28th January, 2010 JUDGMENT E.A. No. 688 of 2009 was an application (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner herein under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. In an earlier Writ Petition filed as W.P.C. 36147/2009 this Court as per judgment dated 15-12-2009 had directed the Sub Court, Palakkad to consider and dispose of the claim petition of the petitioner on merits. Thereafter, what happened was the claim petition was adjourned to 8-1-2010. On that day, according to the petitioner, at a time when his counsel was engaged before the Principal District Court, Palakkad, the claim petition was dismissed for default. Eventhough the petitioner's counsel filed a restoration petition on the next working day itself the grievance of the petitioner is that keeping the restoration petition the court below has ordered delivery. Hence, this Writ Petition. W.P. (c ) No. 2319 of 2010 -:2:- 2. Heard both sides. 3. Eventhough the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the request for restoration of the claim petition and a direction for disposal of the same on merits contending inter alia that there is no bona fides in his claim and that this was a strategy to protract the matter somehow or other, g regard to the fact that the claim petition has not been disposed of on merits, I am inclined to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to have his claim adjudicated on merits. Accordingly, E.A.. No. 688 of 2009 will stand restored to file and shall be disposed of by the court below within one week of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 3-2-2009. The delivery will stand adjourned till 10-2-2010. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. /true copy/ W.P. (c ) No. 2319 of 2010 -:3:-