IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 133 of 2010 ----------------------------- [RP.NO. 6637/2006 IN OS.NO.380/2004 OF SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------- RAJEEV, 33 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, THURUTHEL HOUSE, CHOTTANICARA P.O., KUREEKAD VILLAGE, IN KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADVS. MR. M.K.SUCHEENDRAN, SMT.SMITHA E.MOHAN. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------- REGHU, 68 YEARS, S/O.NALLAKKAN, MANAKKAPADATHU HOUSE, NADAMA VILLAGE, IN KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- CRP No.133 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 8th March 2010 Order In this revision petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Court below in IA No.3363/08 in RP No.6637/06 in OS No.380/04. 2. The petitioner was the defendant in OS No.380/04 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was instituted for a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.03.2003. Along with the suit, the plaintiff produced two sale documents dated 29.03.2003 and 03.04.2004. The petitioner/defendant denied execution of both the documents and submitted that they were forged documents. From the available records, it is seen that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, represented before the Court that the contentions in the written statement were withdrawn. On that basis, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The decree was put in CRP 133/10 2 execution. It appears that the petitioner approached the Court below against the ex parte decree. As to what happened to the stay petition and what are the averments in the affidavit and the petition, are not available, since those documents are not produced before this Court. 3. The petitioner took up a contention that he had not given any instruction to his counsel to withdraw the contentions in the written statement. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.10764/06. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Trial Court to decide whether the petitioner had given any instruction to his counsel for withdrawing his contentions in the written statement. Thereafter, the petitioner filed RP No.6637/06 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, which was dismissed by the said Court. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.4776/08. The said Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the Court below with a direction to afford the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence. The petitioner CRP 133/10 3 thereafter, filed IA No.3363/08 in RP No.6637/06, praying to determine whether in fact instruction had been given by him to his counsel, who had appeared for him before the Court below. The said IA was dismissed by the Court below. It was held by the Court below that the contention raised by the petitioner that he had not given instruction to his counsel, cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and that has resulted in the dismissal of the IA. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the very same contentions raised before the Court below, in this Revision Petition also. 5. The Court below had taken into consideration the evidence given by PW1, who is the petitioner, PW2 - the father of the petitioner and RW1 and RW2, who are the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner and had held that there was no reason to disbelieve their versions. The allegation of the petitioner was that his counsel used to get blank papers signed from him and according to him, CRP 133/10 4 those papers might have been utilised for the purpose of submitting before the Court that their contentions were withdrawn. But, the evidence of RW2, who was appearing for the petitioner is to the effect that he had taken steps before the Trial Court, as instructed by the petitioner himself. RW1 stated that the petitioner was his classmate and it is not correct to say that he has acted without authority from the petitioner. The Court below chose to accept the evidence furnished by RWs 1 and 2 and accordingly dismissed the IA. I find no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, this Revision Petition fails and and it is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRP 133/10 5