High Court Kerala High Court

Bettlal Paul & Another vs P.S.Joseph & Another on 25 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Bettlal Paul & Another vs P.S.Joseph & Another on 25 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 49 of 2011()



1. BETTLAL PAUL & ANOTHER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. P.S.JOSEPH & ANOTHER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :25/01/2011

 O R D E R
                 K.T.SANKARAN, J.
          ------------------------------
                C.R.P.No.49 OF 2011
          ------------------------------
                       th
      Dated this the 25  day of January, 2011




                      ORDER

The petitioners, who are defendants 2 and 3 in

O.S.No.399 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the

Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, challenges

th
the order dated 29 November, 2010 in I.A.No.1250

of 2010, by which the court below allowed the

application under Rule 9 Order IX of the Code of

Civil Procedure and that too on a cost of

Rs.3,000/-.

2. The suit was posted to 18.3.2010. The

plaintiff was working in Bombay. He was not

present before court on that date. The suit was

dismissed for default. He filed application for

restoration of the suit within time. The court

below held that the medical certificate produced by

him could not be relied on. It was held that the

plaintiff has not shown that there was sufficient

C.R.P.No.49 OF 2011 2

cause for his absence on 18.3.2010. However,

taking into account the totality of the

circumstances of the case, the court below allowed

the application on costs of Rs.3000/-. The court

below thought that an opportunity should be

afforded to the plaintiff to prosecute his case on

the merits. There was no delay at all on his part

in making the application. The court below

exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff.

There is no ground to interfere with the exercise

of discretion.

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly,

dismissed.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

cms