IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 27 of 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/10/2010 IN IA 1481/2010 IA 1129/2010 IN I.A.NO.106 OF 2010 IN OS.2/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SIBU MICHEAL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MICHEAL, RESIDING AT 17/324, MUNDANVELI P.O., MANASSERY, KOCHI - 682 007. 2. V.G.MICHEAL, RESIDING AT 17/329, MUNDANVELI P.O., MANASSERY, KOCHI - 682 007. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN SRI.P.P.GENSON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AJAY JOSE K.I., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ISSAC, KARUMANCHERRY HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI 0 682 007. 2. THRESIA JOSE, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.AJAY JOSE, KARUMANCHERRY HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI- 682 007. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, ALONGWITH C.R.P.NO.28 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P.NOS.27 & 28 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsiff of Kochi. The suit was one filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed exparte. No written statement was filed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application to set aside the exparte decree. There was delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, an application was filed to condone the delay also. Those applications came up for hearing on 28.6.2010. On that day, the petitioners were absent and therefore, the applications were dismissed. The order dated 28.6.2010 reads as follows: “No representation for the petitioner. Respondent is represented. Petitioner and his counsel also absent. Sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner for arguing the matter. There is no meaning in granting further adjournment. Hence the petition is dismissed.” C.R.P. NOS.27 AND 28 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 2. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.1087 of 2010 and 1129 of 2010 to restore the application and to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. When I.A.Nos.1129 of 2010 and 1087 of 2010 came up for hearing on 22.7.2010, there was no representation for the petitioners before Court and the petitioners and their counsel were absent. The court below dismissed the applications on 22.7.2010. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.1481 and 1482 of 2010 to review the orders dated 22.7.2010. I.A.Nos.1481 and 1482 of 2010 came up for hearing on 6.10.2010. On that day, the petitioners and their counsel were absent for the second consecutive time, as observed by the court below. Accordingly, the applications were dismissed. The orders dated 6.10.2010 are under challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions. 4. The petitioners were absent all through out. They did not file any written statement and that was one of the reasons for passing the exparte decree. The petitioners filed application for setting aside the exparte decree. The petitioners were absent even when that application was taken up. Though the petitioners filed an C.R.P. NOS.27 AND 28 OF 2011 :: 3 :: application for restoration of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they were absent when that application came up for hearing. Later, they filed an application to review that order. Then also, the petitioners and their counsel were absent. The court cannot be expected to indefinitely wait for the petitioners to turn up. The court below was fully justified in dismissing the applications. No grounds are made out for interference. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/