IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 49 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2010 IN IA 1250/2010 IN OS.399/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS / DEFENDANTS 2 & 3 -------------------------------------------------- 1. BETTYLAL PAUL, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.T.U.PAUL, MUKALEL HOUSE MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT THYPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI.P.O ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE 2. BETTEESH PAUL, AGED 29 YEARS, DO..DO.. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SRI.SAJU JOSE RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND 1ST DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.S.JOSEPH, S/O.K.M.SIMON POOZHIKKUNNEL HOUSE PERUMBAIKKADU KARA PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE PIN-686001 2. C.M.JOSEPH, PAZHEMBILLILAYA CEHRUVIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE PIN-686632 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ C.R.P.No.49 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25 th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioners, who are defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.399 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, challenges the order dated 29 th November, 2010 in I.A.No.1250 of 2010, by which the court below allowed the application under Rule 9 Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure and that too on a cost of Rs.3,000/-. 2. The suit was posted to 18.3.2010. The plaintiff was working in Bombay. He was not present before court on that date. The suit was dismissed for default. He filed application for restoration of the suit within time. The court below held that the medical certificate produced by him could not be relied on. It was held that the plaintiff has not shown that there was sufficient C.R.P.No.49 OF 2011 2 cause for his absence on 18.3.2010. However, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, the court below allowed the application on costs of Rs.3000/-. The court below thought that an opportunity should be afforded to the plaintiff to prosecute his case on the merits. There was no delay at all on his part in making the application. The court below exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff. There is no ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms