IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 396 of 2011() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/01/2011 IN IA 1011/2010 IN RCA.3/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI .................... PETITIONER:(PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT BELOW) ------------------------------------------------------------------ MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS-UNION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,MILMA DAIRY,PERINGOLAM, KUNNUMANGALAM VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW) --------------------------------------------------- 1. MALAPPURAM ZILLA SADHUKARSHAKA ASSOCIATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAVAN,NILAMBUR,MAIN ROAD,NILAMBUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679329. 2. JYOTHI,W/O.UNNI,'SAROJ NIVAS', NEAR KRISHI BHAVAN,NILAMBUR.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679329. 3. K.RASHEED,'KOMBAN HOUSE',PADIKKUNNU, NILAMBUR.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679329. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/12/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- R.C.R No.396 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J There is no appearance for the respondent/tenant in this revision filed by the landlord. Under challenge in this revision is an order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing an application filed by the petitioner for restoration of an appeal which was dismissed for default. The learned appellate authority allowed the application but imposing a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of cost to be paid to the respondent. In the impugned order it is stated that the petitioner is guilty of laches in the earlier stage of the proceedings also. Sri.Rajesh R. Kormath is certainly correct in submitting (his submission is not being resisted before us anybody) that the above observation of the Learned District Judge that the landlord is guilty of laches and is guilty of having protracted the litigation was unwarranted. At the same time it is an undeniable fact that on the day the appeal was dismissed there was no representation for the appellant and it cannot be denied that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed for default. The submission of Mr.Rajesh is that in the morning when the appeal was called the junior advocate R.C.R No.396 of 2011 2 who represented the petitioner's counsel requested for an adjournment. He believed that the adjournment requested was granted. But the learned appellate authority had only passed over the appeal to be taken up later. Being under the impression that the appeal is already adjourned, there was no representation when the case finally taken up. 2. As already indicated the submissions of Mr.Rajesh are not resisted before us, we are sure that imposition of cost amount of Rs.5,000/- was not at all justified in the circumstances which actually attended on this case. We allow this revision to the extent of modifying the impugned order. The amount of Rs.5,000/- mentioned in the impugned order will stand substituted as Rs.500/-. If the revision petitioner pays a sum of Rs.500/- to the respondent either directly or to the respondent's counsel before the appellate authority within three weeks from today, the R.C.A will stand restored back to file. If the same is not done the order dismissing the R.C.A for default will stand confirmed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab