High Court Kerala High Court

Mathew vs Sebastian on 30 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Mathew vs Sebastian on 30 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3181 of 2009(D)


1. MATHEW, AGED 70 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SEBASTIAN, S/O JOSEPH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. JIJO, S/O. SEBASTIAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :30/01/2009

 O R D E R
               K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
           ------------------------------------------------
                 W. P. C. No.3181 of 2009
           ------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009

                          JUDGMENT

Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in

O.S.79/06 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala.

The suit was one for recovery of damages to

the tune of Rs.5,12,500/- from the

respondents. When the suit came up for trial

in the list, plaintiff did not appear and his

counsel reported no instructions. Consequently,

the court below dismissed the suit. A

restoration petition was filed and it was

allowed by the court below vide Ext.P4 order

on condition of the petitioner paying cost of

Rs.5,000/- directly to the respondents and

producing receipt within fifteen days.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is

that the suit itself was instituted as an

indigent person and the petitioner is unable

W. P. C. No.3181 of 2009 -2-

to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- which is an

exorbitant amount as far as he is concerned

and that inasmuch as such a condition is

attached to the order allowing Ext.P3

restoration application, it tantamounts to

dismissal of the restoration petition.

4. The petitioner who has not appeared

when the suit was in the list and no

instruction also was given to his lawyer

either for conduct of the case or to report

before court as to why he is absent, the

attempt of the petitioner/plaintiff cannot but

be taken as an attempt to get the trial of the

suit adjourned. The petitioner cannot be

allowed to have the suit restored without

payment of any cost to the respondents though

however, I am of the view that Rs.5,000/-

ordered as cost is excessive.

5. In the result, I reduce the amount of

cost from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,500/- and grant

W. P. C. No.3181 of 2009 -3-

one week’s time to pay the cost and produce

receipt in the court below. On no ground will

any further extension or enlargement of time

be granted for deposit of the said amount. The

petitioner is directed to produce a copy of

this judgment in the court below forthwith

with notice to the counsel for the defendant

in the court below as this Writ Petition is

being disposed of without notice to the

respondents.

6. Issue copy of this judgment to the

counsel for the petitioner urgently.

K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-