IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 156 of 2007() --------------------- OPIP.5/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN CHETTIYAR, CHEPAVIL VEEDU, KADAKKAVOOR DESOM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KADAKKAVOOR BRANCH, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN, SC, KFC FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER P A SALIM SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC FOR R3 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- FAO 156 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd July 2009 Judgment RAMAN, J. The appellant is the petitioner in an IP(OP) which was dismissed for default. A restoration application was filed along with a petition to condone the delay. That was dismissed. The appellant filed IP(OP)No.5/01 before the Sub Court, Attingal seeking a declaration that he is indigent. The petition was posted to 25.10.2004. According to the petitioner, he was seriously ill and therefore, he could not appear on the said date before the court below. The court below dismissed the petition for default. When the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the petition, he sought to have the petition restored to file and the matter heard on merits. Since there was delay in filing the restoration petition, a petition to condone the delay was also filed. 2. The respondent opposed the petition pointing out that there is no bona fide in the petitions filed by the petitioner. The FAO 156/07 2 court below on finding that there is no merit in the petitions, dismissed both the petitions. Hence this appeal. 3. It may be noticed that the definite claim of the petitioner was that he was seriously ill and he was unable to attend the court on 25.10.2004. But, in support of the said claim, no documents were produced and there was no attempt from his side to show that his case was genuine and bona fide. It is to be noticed that after this appeal was admitted, the appellant sought for time from this court to produce the documents. Inspite of several opportunities given, he has not produced any documents to show that he was seriously ill. So we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE FAO 156/07 3 sta FAO 156/07 4