IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 888 of 2007() ------------------------------ AS.31/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------- DHARMARAJAN, S/O. VELU, PLAVILA VEEDU, MUTTAPPALAM DESOM, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1ST CR.PETITIONER/RESDT.&LRS OF 2ND CR.PETNR.IN IA ------------------------- 1. SNEHA PRABHA, D/O. SEKHARAN, PRABHA NIVAS, MUTTAPPALAM DESOM, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT 'PRABHA',CHAVADYMUKKU, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. MANORANJ, S/O. RAGHUNATHAN (LATE), PRABHA NIVAS, MUTTAPPALAM DESOM, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT 'PRABHA',CHAVADY MUKKU, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK AND DISTRICT 3. MAJURANJ, S/O. LATE RAGHUNATHAN, PRABHA NIVAS, MUTTAPPALAM DESOM, CHEMMARUTHY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT 'PRABHA', CHAVADY MUKKU, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.RAM MOHAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.888 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Attingal in I.A.Nos.1922 & 1924/2003 in A.S.No.31/2003. The revision petitioner herein is the appellant in A.S.No.31/2003. The appeal was dismissed for non prosecution and in order to restore the same he moved an application, I.A.No.651/2003. It was also dismissed for non prosecution. It is to review that order I.A.Nos.1922 & 1924/2003 are filed with a petition to condone the delay of 20 days. Those two applications were also dismissed by the court stating that there are no grounds. So what is to be considered in this case is whether the review applications filed are to be allowed or not. The appeal is dismissed for not taking steps and the I.A. to readmit the appeal also is dismissed for non taking steps. It is desirable that opportunity is to be given to state and prove the grounds for restoration of the appeal. I say so because the ground alleged is that the advocate clerk did not note in the C.R.P.No.888/2007 2 diary. It is a matter that requires consideration. 2. Therefore, I allow I.A.Nos.1922 & 1924/2003 and restore I.A.651/2003. Therefore, the court below is directed to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to allow I.A.651/2003 after permitting both sides to adduce evidence in respect of their contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The court shall dispose of the matter within a time frame of one month from the date of appearance of the parties before the court below. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 3.3.2008. The civil revision petition is disposed of as above. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps