IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.No. 283 of 2006() --------------------- CMA.16/2005 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE OS.531/1997 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT KOZHIKODE-I (IA.1522/2004) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- NEELA NANALAL, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. KHUSHAL BHAI, GHELLA BAI PAREKH, "NEELKUNJU", KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------- 1. K.R. KUMARASWAMI GUPTA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. RANGANATHA GUPTA, CHEROOTTY ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. * 2. SOORAJ BHAI, AGED 85 YEARS, W/O. KHUSHAL BHAI GHELLA BAI PAREKH, DIED MANISHA ENTERPRISES, CHERLAI, KOCHI-2. 3. MANJULA @ AMITHA ARUN SHAH, AGED 5 YEARS, D/O. KHYSHAL BHAI GHELLA BHAI PAREKH MANISHA ENTERPRISES, CHERLAI, KOCHI-2. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R2 & R3 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R2 & R3 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R2 & R3 SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO FOR R1 SRI.MOUNEESH M.R. FOR R1 The petitioner and 3rd respondent are recorded as the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent as per Order dated 30-11-2010 in I.A No.1537/2008 in C.R.P 283/2006. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- C.R.P No.283 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November 2010 ORDER Revision is directed against the concurrent decision rendered in an application moved by the plaintiff seeking restoration of her suit dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court, not being satisfied with the cause shown, dismissed that application. Challenge against that order by way of an appeal as provided under Rule 1 of Order 43 of the Code was also turned down by the lower appellate court. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in this revision invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the order passed by the trial court, it is seen that on a previous occasion also, the suit had been dismissed for default, but, it was restored pursuant to orders by the appellate court. Still, the C.R.P No.283 OF 2006 - 2 - appellant, after such restoration failed to prosecute her case. On the circumstance so presented, I find, no interference with the order dismissing the suit for default emerge for consideration. Revision petition dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv