High Court Kerala High Court

Chandran Pillai vs Dileep Kumar @ Dileep Balakrishna … on 1 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Chandran Pillai vs Dileep Kumar @ Dileep Balakrishna … on 1 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 161 of 2010()


1. CHANDRAN PILLAI, SANTHA SADANAM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RETNAMMA, PARIYIDATHU VEEDU,

                        Vs



1. DILEEP KUMAR @ DILEEP BALAKRISHNA PILLAI
                       ...       Respondent

2. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALICKAL DILEEP

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :01/07/2010

 O R D E R
         THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
          & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
         ---------------------------------------
             C.M.Appln No.1020 of 2010
                & F.A.O.No.161 of 2010
         ---------------------------------------
        Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010

                      JUDGMENT

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

Plaintiffs, in a suit for recovery of money,

are the appellants. The suit was dismissed for default.

An application for restoration, with an application to

condone delay was filed. Thereafter, when those

applications were taken up, there was no appearance

for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, that was also

dismissed. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal against

those orders with an application to condone delay of

92 days in instituting this appeal.

2. Though the plaintiffs attribute the

reason for lack of appearance before the court below

to the inability of their counsel to appear on that day

owing to his hospitalisation, we are clear in our mind

that an application for restoration, when dismissed for

F.A.O.No.161 of 2010

:: 2 ::

default, can be sought to be restored invoking Order IX

Rule 9, read with Section 141 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, if needed with a petition under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act.

Under such circumstances, we do not deem it

necessary to entertain this C.M. Application and FAO.

Without prejudice to the right of the appellants to file an

application in terms of Order IX Rule 9 read with Section

141 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with a petition

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in accordance with

law, before the court below, this C.M. Application and

FAO are dismissed.

Sd/-

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN)
JUDGE

Sd/-

(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//

P.S. to Judge.