IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 1999 of 2001() ----------------------------------- CMA.2/2001 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.589/1994 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS:PLAINTIFFS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY, W/O.EASTY, AGED 59 YEARS, KIZHAKKECHERUKUTTU HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU. 2. BABY, W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, KURUPPASSERY HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU. 3. CICILY, W/O. ANTHAPPAN, AGED 66 YEARS, MUTTUNGAL HUOSE, CHERIAKADAVU. 4. REJI, W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, PALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMPADAPPU. 5. V.J.PETER, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, 58 YEARS, VALIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA, COCHIN – 23. 6. TREASA, W/O.JOHN, AGED 46 YEARS, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, THEVARA, COCHIN – 13. BY ADV. SMT.K.TRESA RANI GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------------- V.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 63 YEARS, VALIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA, COCHIN – 23. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1999 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the judgment rendered by the District Judge, Ernakulam in C.M.A.No.2/2001 confirming the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the application moved by the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit. Suit, numbered as O.S.No.589/1994 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for fixation of boundary and injunction. That suit came up for trial two years after institution and then the plaintiffs moved for appointment of a Commissioner seeking its removal from the list. The court obliged the request of the petitioners and the case was removed from the list. Though a Commissioner was appointed, no report was filed even after considerable time. Finally the court directed the Commissioner to surrender his warrant and the case was posted for appearance of the plaintiff. Consequent to the default of the plaintiff to appear, the suit was dismissed for CRP.1999/01 2 nonprosecution. An application moved by the plaintiff to restore the suit also was dismissed for default. A fresh application moved by the plaintiff to restore that application was allowed and, after conducting an enquiry, in which no material was placed by the plaintiff to show the cause, leave alone sufficient cause, for her absence when the case was posted for hearing, the learned Munsiff dismissed that application. Against that application, the plaintiff moved an appeal before the District Court. The appellate Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances involved, concurred with the views taken by the learned Munsiff that the suit was dismissed for nonprosecution solely due to the laches and wilful default of the plaintiff. The revision filed against that judgment is pending before this Court from 2001 onwards. No steps has been taken for giving notice to the respondent though repeated orders had been passed for taking such steps. Notice sent to respondent was returned on 3.11.2001 and, thereafter, no steps were taken. The learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded for indulgence to take fresh steps. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances CRP.1999/01 3 involved and taking note that a suit filed 15 years ago is sought to be revived, that too dismissed for nonprosecution, I find this is not a fit case where any indulgence can be shown. Revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1999 OF 2001 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 16th day of July, 2009