IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5631 of 2008(U) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1933/2006 IN AS.50/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KUNJAN PILLAI,S/O. SIVAN PILLAI AGED 73 YEARS, CHITTATUMUKKU,KANIYAPURAM, KADINAMKULAM MURI, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UMMER PILLA AMANULLA,COMPANY EMPLOYEE CHIRAKKAL, MANAKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PADINJATTUMUKKU, KADINAMKULAM MURI, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. AMANULLA KHADER,COMPANY EMPLOYEE CHIRAKKAL, MANAKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PADINJATTUMUKKU, KADINAMKULAM MURI, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE. 3. RADHAMMA JAYAKUMARI AMMA, HOUSE WIKFE, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU KADINAMKULAM. 4. KRISHNA PILLAI VIJAYAN NAIR PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM. 5. PREMALETHA, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM. 6. ANILKUMAR,S/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KADINAMKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5631 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Sub Judge, Attingal in IA 1933/06 in AS 50/00. AS 50/00 was preferred against the judgment and decree in OS 376/92 of the Munsiff court, Attingal. It was dismissed for not taking proper steps. Thereafter the appellant moved IA 1743/05, with a prayer to readmit the appeal by condoning the delay of 978 days. It was posted for evidence. As there was no representation, it was dismissed on 24.11.06. Thereafter a petition is filed to restore IA 1743/05 on the ground that the petitioner and his counsel were present in court but they could not hear at the time of calling the case, which has resulted in non- representation. The court below held that if really the counsel and party were present, at least they could have made a representation on that day or, at the latest, by the next day. It was not done and an application is filed on the sixth day. 2. I cannot find fault with the appellate court for arriving at such a decision. But, at the same time, I find that the suit is with WPC NO 5631/08 2 respect to declaration of right of parties. So far as IA 1743/05 is concerned, the application to restore the same has been filed within six days from the date of dismissal of the matter. It is a settled principle that principles of natural justice always demand that an opportunity should be given for hearing the parties. 3. So I feel that this is a fit case where I shall direct the appellate court to restore IA 1743/05 to file and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides. The writ petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on 19.3.08. On his appearance, the court below shall give notice to the respondent in the appeal, fix a date for hearing and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5631/08 3