IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 CRP.No. 722 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2008 IN IA 2400/2007 IN OS.14/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): 1ST COUNTER PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SARALA, W/O. LATE M.K.SUDHAKARAN, GEETHANJALI, T.C13/243, PATTOOR, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & ---------------------------- 1. MEENA SUNIL, W/O. G.SUNIL & D/O.LATE M.K.SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING AT GEEGHANJALI T.C.13/243, PATTOOR, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.SUNIL, S/O. M.GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT DO -DO- 3. S. SATHEESH, S/O. LATE M.K. SUDHAKARAN, ANUGRAHA, AKSHARAVEETHI ROAD, PEETTAH P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. S.ANTHOSH, S/O. LATE M.K.SUDHAKARAN, NEETUSHA, KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIERUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. S. GEETHA D/O. LATE M.K. SUDHAKARAN, KALYANI, KANNAMMOOLA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. A. REGHU, RETIRED EXECITIVE ENGINEER, RITA NIVAS, PAPPALA, KILIMANOOR CRP NO.722/2008 2 7. ANURAG, S/O. REGHU, BHUVANESWAR, MOONNUMUKKU, PETTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. ARCHANA, D/O. LATE RITA REGHU, RITA NIVAS, PAPPALA, KILIMANOOR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.722 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008. ORDER Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.14 of 2006 in the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for partition and other reliefs. Revision petitioner who is the first defendant in that suit resisted the claim for partition and made a counter-claim for eviction of respondents 1 and 2. Case came up for trial in the list. Respondents 1 and 2 were absent and hence the suit was dismissed for default. Counter claim filed by the petitioner was allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.2400 of 2007 to set aside the dismissal of suit and the decree on the counter claim. Learned First Additional Sub Judge vide the impugned order allowed the prayer. That order is under challenge in this revision. 2. I have gone through the order under challenge. It is seen that I.A.No.2400 of 2007 was filed within the period of limitation which itself would indicate that there was no wilful laches on the part of respondents 1 and 2. It was within the power of learned Sub Judge to liberally construe the words 'good cause' and 'sufficient cause' occurring in Order IX Rules 9 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, respectively and grant relief. On going through the order under challenge and hearing the submissions of learned counsel for revision petitioner, I am not inclined to think there was any gross negligence or CRP No.722/2008 2 misconduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2 requiring rejection of I.A.No.2400 of 2007. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Sub Judge in that regard, requiring this Court to interfere in revision. 3. Learned counsel then submitted that the First Additional Sub Judge may be directed to dispose of the suit and counter-claim as expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel submitted that pre-trial steps are over. He prayed for direction for time bound disposal. Without being aware of the volume of work in that court and the work schedule fixed, I do not think it proper or necessary to direct a time bound disposal. If the pre-trial steps are otherwise over and suit and counterclaim are ripe for trial, petitioners can request learned Sub Judge to expedite the trial and disposal of the suit and counter-claim. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. I.A.No.2184 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks