IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 FAO.No. 195 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2009 IN IA 729/2008 IN FAO.16/2004 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. ELIZABETH, VAS HOUSE, BISHOP'S HOUSE ROAD, THANGASSERI, KOLLAM. 2. FRIDOVAS VAS HOUSE, BISHOP'S HOUSE ROAD, THANGASSERI, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. FILOMINA, MADAPPARA VADAKKATHIL, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ROSE MARY, MADAPPARA VADAKKATHIL, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SEBASTIAN MADAPPARA VADAKKATHIL, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT 4. EDWARD MADAPPARA VADAKKATHIL, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS FOR R1,3 MS.S.SIKKY FOR R1,3 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ F.A.O.No.195 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The defendants in O.S.No.77 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur, are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order dated 24.1.2009 in I.A.No.729 of 2008 in F.A.O.No.16 of 2004 of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. F.A.O.No.16 of 2004 came up for final hearing on 5.4.2008. Appellants called absent. Finding that there was no representation the appeal was dismissed for default. I.A.No.729 of 2008 was filed by the absentee appellants for re-admission of the appeal. The reason stated for the non-appearance on 5.4.2008 is that the counsel could not attend the court for the reason that his clerk had mistakenly recorded the posting date as 08.04.2008 instead of 05.04.2008. Since the petition is not supported by the affidavit of the advocate clerk the court below did not accept the reasons and the petition for readmission was dismissed. 2. The original suit was decreed ex-parte. The defendants did not contest the suit. They have preferred a F.A.O.195 Of 2010 ::2:: petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the same was dismissed. Therefore, they have preferred the above said F.A.O.No.16/2004 against the dismissal of their petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said appeal also was dismissed for default. There was no occasion for the courts below to consider the case on merits. In the interest of justice, this Court directs the court below to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits, on condition that the appellants shall pay Rs.2,000/- to the counsel for the respondents within a period of two weeks from today failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. The court below shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. The appeal is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-