IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32508 of 2008(T) -------------------------- OS.51/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PANKAJAKSHY AMMA, AGED 61 YEARS W/O.DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, DEEPA NIVAS, PUNATHILKANDY, ULLIYERI AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 81 YEARS W/O.LATE ACHUTHAN NAIR PANAKKAD HOUSE, ULLIYERI AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SMT.T.LAKSHMI SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- THODUVAYIL CHANDRAN NAMBI, 57 YEARS S/O.VASU ALIAS KESAVAN NAMBI, ULLIYERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 32508 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The defendants in O.S. No. 51 of 2005 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy challenge Ext.P8 order passed by the learned Munsiff condoning the delay of 553 days in filing I.A. No. 140 of 2008 filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default. The said suit filed by the respondents herein is one for fixation of bounday. The suit was dismissed for default. Even though the court below was not happy with the inordinate delay in filing the restoration petition, the court below was however, not inclined to hold that the plaintiffs were guilty of gross negligence so as to disentitle them from having the suit restored to file. The court, however, put the plaintiffs on terms by directing them to pay a cost of Rs.1000/-. It is the said order which is assailed in this writ petition filed by the defendants. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing strong reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 32508/2008 : 2: E.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada & others (2000(3) SCC 54), strenuously argued that the court below should not have extended any indulgence to the plaintiffs who were guilty of gross negligence. Even the observations in the decision cited by the learned counsel are against the petitioners, since it is clearly stated by the Apex Court that the court has wide discretion in the matter of condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause. I am not persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Munsiff who was inclined to put the plaintiffs on terms. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is sufficiently old, the learned Munsiff shall make an earnest endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously and at any rate within six months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 32508/2008 : 3: W.P.(C) No. 32508/2008 : 4: