IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 CRP.No. 260 OF 2003() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2002 IN IA.1725/2001 IN OS.309/99 OF MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 & DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.RAMAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (NOW AGED 64 YEARS) RESIDING AT "SUMTHRUPTHI', KALATHIPARAMBU LANE, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, S/O. K.RAMAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS (NOW AGED 31 YEARS), RESIDING AT 'SUMTHRUPTHI', KALATHIPARAMBU LANE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) SRI.A.SAMEER SRI.R.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & R3 IN I.A. AND PLAINTIFF AND D3 IN OS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PANDIAMMAL, AGED 38 YEARS (NOW AGED 41) W/O. MAHALINGAM, RESIDING AT HARIJAN COLONY, LEKSHMI KARA, ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE. 2. GANESAN ALIAS V.P.R. GANESAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT HARIJAN COLONY, LEKSHMI KARA ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP 260/03 ORDER ON CMP 657 OF 2003 IN CRP 260 OF 2003 DISMISSED 3.9.2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Okb/- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ C.R.P.NO. 260 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order passed on 11.12.2002 allowing I.A.1725 of 2001, a petition filed under Rule 9 of Order IX of Code of Civil Procedure restoring the suit, which was dismissed for default on 31.10.2001. Under the impugned order, learned Munsiff without considering the sufficiency of the ground, allowed the application on payment of cost. Though notice was served on first respondent he did not appear. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner specifically contended in the objection that on 3.10.2001 when the suit was dismissed for default, first respondent plaintiff was present in the Court and was not prepared to adduce evidence and in such circumstance there is no sufficient cause for restoring the suit and learned Munsiff did not consider the objections. As the order shows that learned Munsiff did not CRP 260/03 2 consider the sufficiency of the ground for restoring the suit, the impugned order passed in I.A.1725 of 2001 is set aside. I.A1725 of 2001 is remanded to Munsiff, Devikulam to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/- CRP 260/03 3 ============================= M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ORDER C.R.P.No.260 OF 2003 3rd September, 2008. ======================