THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.2332 of 2006 Date: 11.2.2011 Between: Sunkari Phulgunarao ………..Petitioner/plaintiff. And Meraka Latchamma and another. ………..Respondents/defendants. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.2332 of 2006 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 31.1.2006 passed in I.A No.188 of 2003 in O.S No.30 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the original suit. The suit was posted for adducing evidence of the petitioner on 28.8.2002 and on that day, he did not attend the Court and the suit was dismissed for default. Then he filed an application to restore the suit by setting aside the dismissal order. As there was delay in filing the said application, he filed I.A No.188 of 2003 praying to condone the delay of 163 days in filing the restoration petition. According to the petitioner, he was suffering from Jaundies and he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Rajam from 25.8.2002 to 29.11.2003 and therefore he was unable to attend the Court. It is also his case that Dr.C. Krishna Rao treated him during that period and he has also filed the certificate issued by the said doctor in support of his contention. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and Dr. C. Krishnarao was examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P1-medical certificate was marked. On behalf of the respondents, 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. P.W.2 has categorically deposed that he had treated the petitioner from 25.8.2002 to 29.11.2003 as an out patient and that on 10.2.2003 he issued Ex.P1-medical certificate. The lower Court holding that the Government Hospital is situated adjacent to the Court Hall and that P.W.1 was able to walk and talk during the period of his treatment and holding so the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Challenging the said order, this revision has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has proved that he was admitted in the hospital on 25.8.2009 to 29.1.2003 and that the lower Court has not considered the application in proper perspective. The Court must be liberal in their attitude, more so, when the petitioner claims that he was admitted in a Government Hospital during that period. Though the petitioner may be in position to walk and talk and but normally when a person is admitted in the hospital, unless he is specifically permitted by the hospital authorities, he cannot leave the hospital premises. Whatever it may be, it is clear that the petitioner had shown sufficient reason for his absence. When the petitioner has shown the sufficient reason, the lower Court appears to be not justified in dismissing the application on assumptions and presumptions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the High Court of Delhi reported in case between UNIVERSAL BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS V. SHEILA SING UPPAL[1] and MEHANT JOGINDER SINGH V. S.B. NARONHA[2]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and it has to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.188 of 2003 stands allowed. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:11.2.2011. mrb [1] CDJ 2008 DHC 2080 [2] CDJ 2002 DHC 614