IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 81 of 2010(B) ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 15/06/2009 IN I.A. NO. 383/2008 IN O.S. NO. 105/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKAD) ............. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ T.K.UNNEEN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.THEKKUMPURATH KALATHIL MOIDU, PALLIKKUNNU DESOM, KARYAVATTOM VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT. PRAVITHA .A.R. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------------- KRISHNASWAMY, S/O. KUNKU KAVUNDAR, BOMMAMUDIYIL HOUSE, KOTTATHARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 81 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010. ORDER Petitioner assails the order dated 15.6.2009 in I.A.383 of 2008 in O.S. 105 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate's court, Mannarkad, by which the suit was restored to file. 2. The suit was one for declaration that document No.19/2006 of Agali Sub Registry Office is void and for consequential injunction. It is seen that the suit was listed for trial on 4.6.2008. On that day the plaintiff could not appear and the suit was dismissed for default. Within the stipulated time, the petitioner preferred I.A.383 of 2008 for restoration of the suit to file. The lower court was convinced by the cause put forward by the plaintiff and accordingly the suit was restored. The said order is assailed. C.R.P.81/2010. 2 3. The main grievance voiced by the petitioner before this court is that there is difference in the averments made in the petition and the evidence given by the plaintiff. They are really contradictory and inconsistent. 4. It must be noticed that the suit has been dismissed for default. The petitioner has no right of appeal and the plaintiff cannot file another suit on the same cause of action. It is difficult to believe that the plaintiff would have deliberately abstained from court taking the risk of getting his suit dismissed for default. Under such circumstances, the court below is justified in restoring the suit dismissed for default. The plaintiff has pointed out that he was suffering from fever and he was not in a position to attend the court. He has given sufficient reasons. May be that there is some inconsistency in the pleading and the evidence before court, but that is not a ground reject the restoration application. C.R.P.81/2010. 3 Considering all the aspects, it is felt that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order impugned. This petition is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.