IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9366 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ OS.600/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. KUNJUMUHAMMED, S/O.KOMUNDATHAYIL KASIM HAJI, PALAYOOR DESOM, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. SABIRA, D/O.KUNJAHAMMED & W/O. PALAKAVEETTIL KOTTILUNGAL ABOOBACKER, VYLATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. ALEEMAKUTTY @ PALAKKAVEETTIL, KOTTILUNGAL UMMU, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- CHANDRANATHAN, S/O.VADUKKUMCHERY GOPALAN, KARAYUR DESOM, PERAKAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.9366 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th March 2010 Judgment In this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail Ext.P3 order passed by the Sub Court, Thrissur by which the suit which was dismissed on 16.01.2009, was restored to file. 2. The respondent herein instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The suit was dismissed for default on 16.01.2009. The plaintiff filed two Interlocutory Applications, IA No.1217/09 for restoring the suit to file and IA No.1216/09 for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. The petitioners herein filed objections to the said applications, but the Court below, after considering the averments and also other circumstances of the case, found it proper to allow the applications. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Court WPC 9366/10 2 below, which is assailed in this Petition. 3. It must be noticed that the Court below, exercising its discretionary power, has found that there are sufficient reasons to restore the suit. The said exercise of discretion does not seem to be perverse or irregular, warranting interference by this Court. This Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 9366/10 3