IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 91 of 2005()
1. THATTANKANDIYIL KUNHAMMAD, S/O.MOOS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NARAKKOTTU KADARKUTTY, S/O.USSAINKUTTY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VALSALAN
For Respondent :SRI.SANTHARAM.P
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :22/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
F.A.O. No.91 of 2005
-------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is
one for recovery of money. The case was originally posted for
trial by including in the special list on 13.7.2000. On that day,
the suit was dismissed since the plaintiff’s counsel submitted no
instruction and the plaintiff was also absent. Then that was
restored and he was directed to take steps. The case was again
listed for trial on 8.1.2001. On that day, plaintiff filed a petition
to send the disputed documents for expert’s opinion. Hence,
the case was removed from the list and he was given sufficient
time to take steps. Experts wanted deficit amount to be
remitted, but the plaintiff did not remit the same. Again, the
case was listed to 1.10.2002. Though the petitioner wanted to
advance the hearing, that was not allowed and the case was
taken up on 1.10.2002 itself. On that also, he absented himself
F.A.O.No.91 of 2005
2
from appearing. The counsel was also absent. Hence, the suit
was dismissed. Then, he filed an application for restoration
stating that his wife was admitted in the hospital and he was
attending her and hence he could not appear before the court
below on 1.10.2002. No medical certificate was also produced.
As a matter of fact, when the matter was posted for evidence, he
again absented himself. The court below, in such circumstances,
dismissed the petition for restoration. Against the said order,
this appeal is preferred.
We have perused the order. Considering the factual
situation as stated above, we do not think, the appellant is
entitled for any relief in this appeal, as the appeal itself is devoid
of any merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.
nj.