IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24103 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.909/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.SOMAN, POKKALATHUVILAVEEDU, THEKKEMURI, EAST-KALLADA P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- SMT.VALSALA THULASEEDHARAN, MULACHKAL, THAZHATHUMURI,EAST-KALLADA P.O., KOLLAM PIN-691502. ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) FOR R1 SRI.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.24103 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P5, order dated 30-06-2010 on I.A.No.3598 of 2009 in O.S.No.909 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kollam is under challenge. Petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.2,44,000/- with future interest and cost. The suit was dismissed on 29-09-2009 for default in not taking steps. Petitioner filed I.A.No.3493 of 2009 on 14-10-2009 for restoration of the suit. Grievance of petitioner is that the said application was dismissed on 15-10-2009 without even posting the matter in the Bench and hearing counsel for petitioner. On 17-10-2009 petitioner filed I.A.No.3598 of 2009 for restoration of the suit dismissed on 29-09-2009 which the learned Sub Judge was pleased to dismiss by Ext.P5, order dated 30-06-2010 observing that on 29-09-2009 the suit was dismissed as there was defect in process which was not cured even though time was granted to the petitioner for the said purpose and that failure of petitioner shows wilful negligence and hence there is no merit in the application. Learned counsel contends that prayer in I.A.No.3598 of 2009 should have been taken as for review of the order dated W.P(C).No. 24103 of 2010 : 2 : 15-10-2009 on I.A.No.3493 of 2009. It is also submitted that having regard to the circumstances of the case learned Sub Judge was not correct in dismissing I.A.Nos.3493 of 2009 and 3598 of 2009 vide Exts.P5 and P6, orders respectively. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also. According to learned counsel there is no reason to interfere with the order. 2. Learned counsel submits that steps for issue of summons was taken along with the suit and that the summons in the suit was returned as unserved. Again, steps were taken on 25-06-2009 but, there happened to be defect in the steps taken which went unnoticed. Accordingly the suit happened to be dismissed on 29-09-2009. 3. It is seen that on 14-10-2009 petitioner filed Ext.P3, I.A.No.3492 of 2009 for restoration of the suit stating reasons. That application was filed on 14-10-2009 and was dismissed on 15-10-2009 as per Ext.P6, order stating as follows: “Prima facie no ground to proceed with the petition. Hence rejected.” Ext.P6 does not say what according to the learned Sub Judge prima facie prevented learned Sub Judge from proceeding with the application. It is distressing to note that learned Sub Judge W.P(C).No. 24103 of 2010 : 3 : has disposed of the application by a cryptic, unsatisfactory order. Petitioner filed I.A.No.3598 of 2009 on 17-10-2009. Though the prayer in that application is for restoration of the suit dismissed for default, I am persuaded to treat it as an application for review of Ext.P6, order dated 15-10-2009 on I.A.No.3493 of 2009 having regard to the circumstances of the case. I must bear in mind that in this case petitioner sought recovery of Rs.2,44,000/- which is not a small amount. There is no reason to think that having sought recovery of that much amount, petitioner was negligent in proceeding with the suit. Let us bear in mind that courts are respected for rendering justice to the parties and not for technical disposals. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to allow I.A.Nos.3493 and 3598 of 2009 but on terms of cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to the respondent. Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) Exts.P5 and P6, orders are set aside and I.A.No.3598 of 2009 (treating it as one for review of Ext.P6, order dated 14-10-2009 on I.A.No.3493 of 2009) and I.A.No.3493 of 2009 in O.S.No.909 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kollam will stand allowed on condition that petitioner deposited in the court below for W.P(C).No. 24103 of 2010 : 4 : payment to respondent Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) by way of cost within three weeks from this day. (ii) On compliance of the above condition, the said applications will stand allowed and the suit restored to file in which case, parties shall appear in the suit in the court below on 15-12-2010. Learned Sub Judge shall then proceed with the suit as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-