IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 98 of 2010() ------------------------------- IA. NO.998/2009 IN OS.231/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------- BABY, S/O. ULAHANNAN, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM. BY ADVS. MR.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL MR.BINU PAUL MR. T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS -------------------------- 1. MATHEW, S/O. OUSEPH, KAKKARAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM. 2. JOSE MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, KAKKARAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 98 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 O R D E R In this revision petition the revision petitioner questions the order passed in I.A.Nos.998 and 999 of 2009, by which the court below was inclined to restore the suit after condoning the delay. 2. It appears that the suit was listed for trial and since the plaintiffs did not appear, the suit was dismissed for default. Later, the plaintiffs filed two applications I.A. Nos.998 and 999 of 2009. One is to restore the suit and the other is to condone the delay in filing the petition for restoration. The court below after elaborately considered the case found that in the interest of justice the suit needs to be restored and no injury would be caused to the revision petitioner/respondent. Hence, both the petitions were allowed with cost. That is assailed in this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision CRP 98/2010 2 petitioner contends that there is no bona fides in the statements made by the plaintiffs in the petition for restoration of the suit. It is also pointed out that no sufficient reason is stated to condone the long delay in filing the petition for restoration. 4. All those aspects have been considered by the court blow and the court below has chosen to exercise its discretion. I find there is no error apparent on the face of the records. The court below noticed that no injury is caused to the respondent and awarded cost also. Hence, this petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE mn