IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7531 of 2008(V) ------------------------- I.A.No.3536/07 in OS.786/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.T.THANKAM, W/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS, `SREEJA BHAVAN', CHELAVOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VASANTHAKUMARI, D/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, CHELAVOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. REMADEVI, D/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, CHELAVOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. GIRIJA BHAI, D/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, CHELAVOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. T.T.SURESH BABU, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, CHELAVOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. AJITHAKUMARI, D/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, CHELAVOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 6. SREEJA, D/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, CHELAVOOR AMSOM, MAYANAD DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. W.P.(C)No.7531/08 2 7. SULOCHANA, D/O.KUMARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, KULANGARADATH MEETHAL, GURUKRIPA. 8. KUMARAN, S/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED 68 YEARS, KULANGARADATH MEETHAL, GURUKRIPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C)No.7531 OF 2008-V ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside the dismissal of Exhibit P3 application for non-payment of costs. The said application is one for amendment and the Court allowed the amendment application but directed the cost to be paid by 2.30 PM on the very same day. The counsel appearing for the petitioner made a request and subsequently, he even filed an application to get the time extended for the reason that he was unable to contact his client, the Court did not consider that request sympathetically and dismissed the application. I am further informed, thereafter the Court has also dismissed the suit and an application for restoration is pending. I am also informed that the other suit filed by the defendant was set ex parte and against which an application for setting aside the ex parte decree is also pending. 2. In this writ petition, this Court can only consider the question of dismissal of the amendment application. I feel that the Court below has been little harsh and it should not have dismissed the case, since the amount was not paid within two hours, especially when W.P.(C)No. 7531/08 2 the lawyer expressed his inability to contact the client. It requires interference. As the matter is now pending before the trial Court in connection with restoration and setting aside the ex parte decree of two matters, even if I allow the application now, since there is no suit pending, there will be practical difficulty. Therefore, I direct the Court below to consider the application for restoration and the other application for setting aside the ex parte decree and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and if the application for restoration of the suit is allowed, permit the present petitioner herein to pay the cost within a period of one week from the date of restoration of the suits and then allow the amendment application and give opportunity to the defendant to file additional written statement and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. dsn