IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10748 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.181/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SAROJA. SAROJA BHAVAN, PERAYIKKONATHU, ELAMBA P.O., EDACKOD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MANOHARAN, PARUTHIYIL HOUSE, EDACKOD VILLAGE. 2. VASANTHA, PARUTHIYIL HOUSE, EDACKOD VILLAGE. 3. LISSY, BHARATHEYAM HOUSE, ELAMBA P.O., EDACKOD VILLAGE. 4. DOLLY, PERAYIKKONATHU ELAMBA P.O., EDACKOD VILLAGE. 5. SUJATHA, PERYAIKKONATHU ELAMBA P.O., EDACKOD VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.10748 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order condoning the delay in filing the petition, the defendant before the court below has come up before this Court with this petition. 2. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs in using the plaint schedule property and for ancillary reliefs. The suit was listed for trial on 28.11.2009. Since the plaintiffs did not appear on that day the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter it appears that one of the plaintiffs filed petition for restoration and to condone the delay of 62 days in filing the petition. I.A No.385/2010 is the petition for condonation of delay. Petitioners vehemently opposed the petition and filed a detailed objection to the same. Petitioner in I.A was examined as PW1. She was cross examined at length with respect to the averments in support of the affidavit. According to the petitioner, it has come out in evidence that what was stated by her in the affidavit was absolutely W.P (C) No.10748 of 2010 2 incorrect. Still the learned Munsiff passed the impugned order. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below had not adverted to the objections filed by the petitioner and applied his mind. That has caused miscarriage of justice. 4. Of course a reasoned order has not been passed. That does not a matter in the light of the fact that what was done is only allow the petition for condonation of delay and the court felt that no injury or loss will be caused to the petitioner herein by allowing the petition. Some contentions regarding the merits of the case are also urged. Those are matters for consideration at the time of trying the suit. The suit is to be restored to file. All that now want the court blow is to condone the delay petition and it does not appear any miscarriage of justice has occurred justifying the petitioner herein. Petition is without any merits and accordingly it is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.10748 of 2010 3 W.P (C) No.10748 of 2010 4