IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 68 of 2010() ------------------------------ AS.207/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR. OS.1940/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. ............. REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIVADAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PALIYATH NARAYANI AMMA, THIRUVENKITAM DESOM, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 AND 3: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INTACT INVESTMENT COMPANY (P) LTD., MAMMIYUR DESOM, GURUVAYUR MUNCIPALITY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIMON, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.NEELAMKAVIL LAZAR, KAVEED DESOM, POOKODE VILLAGE, DO. TALUK. 2. NARAYANAN, S/O.MADATHIL VEETTIL KRISHNAYYER, THIRUVENKITAM DESOM, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. SANTHA RAVI, THIRUVENKITAM DESOM, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 68 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. ORDER This revision is directed against the judgment in A.S. 207 of 2007 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur, by which the said appeal was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein is the second defendant in O.S. 1940 of 2001 of Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad. The suit was one for money. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant was a subscriber to a kuri run by the company and the second and third defendants stood as sureties. As usual, the amount was received and instalments were defaulted. The suit was preceded by a notice. Since the amount was not paid, the suit was laid. 3. It appears that the petitioner, who was the second defendant before the trial court entered appearance and filed a written statement. The first defendant remained ex-parte and the plaintiff gave up CRP.68/2010. 2 his claim against the third defendant. The suit was listed for trial and the plaintiff adduced evidence on his behalf. 4. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the plaintiff. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the defendants. On a consideration of the materials before it, the court below found that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his claim and accordingly decreed the suit. 5. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed A.S.207 of 2007 before the District Court, Thrissur. As the appeal was filed out of time, a petition to condone delay was also filed. The first appellate court dismissed the delay petition and consequently the appeal. Therefore, the second defendant has come up in revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the specific contention in the suit was that the document to which he is claimed to be a party is a forged document and he has not executed any such document. It is also pointed out that there was no issue CRP.68/2010. 3 regarding this point and an opportunity may be given to him to establish his case. 7. There is no merit in the above contention. The plaintiff has gone to the box and has adduced evidence also to show that there was a transaction between him and the defendants. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the issues raised, it was open to him to bring it to the notice of the court below and press for framing of proper issues. Apart from all these facts, he did not even chose to go to the box and adduce any evidence in support of his claim. On the basis of the materials available before it, the trial court decreed the suit. The result is that there is no merit in this revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.