IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 373 of 2006() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2006 IN IA 802/ 2005 IN OS.43/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------ M/S. KARAKKATTU FINANCE, LICENCE NO.2228/92, KARAKKATTU BUILDING, KANINADU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER OMANA VARGHESE, W/O. K.P. GEEVARGHESE, AGED 53 YEARS, KARAKKATTU BUILDINGS, KANINADU P.O., PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT: ----------------------- K.K. THOMAS, S/O. KORA, KALLUMGAL HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, ALONG WITH C.R.P. NO. 393 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= C.R.P Nos.373 & &393 of 2006 ======================= Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent the defendant in O.S.43/2001 on the file of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. C.R.P.373/2006 is filed against the order in I.A.802/2005 and C.R.P.393/2006 against the order in I.A.801/2005. The suit was dismissed for default on 28.10.2003. Petitioner filed I.A.2525/2003 and I.A.2526/2003, the former under Rule 9 of Order IX to restore the suit and the latter to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Both the petitions were dismissed for default on 17.6.2004. Petitioner filed I.A.801/2005 and I.A.802/2005 to restore I.A.2525/2003 and I.A.2526/2003. Those petitions were dismissed by learned Munsiff as per separate orders dated 31.1.2006. Petitions were dismissed on the ground that no reason has been shown. CRP Nos.373 & 393 of 2006 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. In these revision petitions or while considering I.A.801/2005 and I.A. 802/2005, sufficiency of the cause to restore the suit or to condone the delay in filing the restoration application or the ground for restoration of the restoration petition are not to be considered. The question is whether petitioner is entitled to get I.A.2525/2003 and I.A.2526/2003 which were dismissed for default on 17.6.2004, restored to file. Though learned Munsiff dismissed the applications stating that no reasons are shown, learned counsel appearing for petitioner made available copy of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.801/2005 and 802/2005. The affidavit shows that grounds shown in the application was that the counsel of the petitioner omitted to make representation on the posting day and therefore dismissal was not on account of the wilful laches CRP Nos.373 & 393 of 2006 3 or negligence of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the counsel who was originally appearing for petitioner in I.A.2525/2003 was subsequently changed. That fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent. In such circumstance, it cannot be said that petitioner wilfully remained absent causing the dismissal of the petitions. In such circumstance the petitions could have been allowed on terms. The revision petitions will stand allowed as follows:- If the petitioner pays or deposits Rs.2000/-as cost to the respondent within two weeks from today, the revision petitions and I.A.801/2005 and 802/2005 will stand allowed and consequently I.A.2525/2003 and I.A.2526/2003 will stand restored in which event Munsiff, Perumbavoor is to dispose them on merit after hearing the parties. If the petitioner fails to pay or deposit the cost as directed, the revision petitions will CRP Nos.373 & 393 of 2006 4 stand dismissed without further orders. M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------- ORDER MARCH,2008