IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 342 of 2011() -------------------------------- CMA.NO.4/2010 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HAREENDRAN, S/O.THAMPI NADAR, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KAITHOTTUKONAM, THALAYAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. PUSHPAKUMARI, D/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO- 3. SHAN, S/O.MADHAVAN NADAR, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ APPUKUTTAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NADAR, SHERLI BHAVAN, THALAYAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PIN -673 508. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.342 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of August, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.138 of 1998 of the Court of learned Second Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara. That was a suit for injunction filed by the petitioners. Respondent/defendant while resisting the suit made a counter claim. On 13.09.2001 the suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decreed. Petitioners challenged the same in A.S.No.69 of 2002 and the case was remanded. After remand, the case was again posted for the trial in the list on 03.07.2008. While so, one of the defendants filed I.A.No.3455 of 2008 on 03.07.2008 to send the disputed document to the expert for opinion on the signature. That application was dismissed as no steps were taken, on 01.09.2008. Again the case came up for trial in the list on 03.10.2008. Petitioners, three in number remained absent and the suit was dismissed for default (it is not clear what happened to the counter claim raised by the respondent/defendant). Petitioners filed I.A.No.6553 of 2008 on 03.11.2008 for restoration of the suit. That application was dismissed. C.M.A.No.4 of 2010 arising from the order was also dismissed. Hence this civil revision. C.R.P.No.342 of 2011 -: 2 :- Learned counsel requested that petitioners may be given an opportunity to prosecute the suit. 2. It is seen that the case was posted for trial in the list on more occasions than one and on all occasions the suit had been dismissed for absence of petitioners and counsel. In I.A.No.6553 of 2008 the reason stated for restoration is that first petitioner was ill. Courts below pointed out that assuming so, there are two other petitioners/plaintiffs who could have been present in Court and prosecute the suit there was no proper explanation why they could not do so. It was also contended that respondent/first defendant is now aged 75 years. 3. The litigation started in the year 1998. As I stated, atleast on two occasions the suit was dismissed for default. Litigating parties shall not be under the impression that any mistake or latches on their part would be condoned by the superior Courts. Having regard to the facts I am not inclined to think that a further opportunity must be given to the petitioners. Hence I do not find reason to interfere. This original petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-