IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 722 of 2008()
1. SARALA, W/O. LATE M.K.SUDHAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MEENA SUNIL, W/O. G.SUNIL & D/O.LATE
... Respondent
2. G.SUNIL, S/O. M.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
3. S. SATHEESH, S/O. LATE M.K. SUDHAKARAN,
4. S.ANTHOSH, S/O. LATE M.K.SUDHAKARAN,
5. S. GEETHA D/O. LATE M.K. SUDHAKARAN,
6. A. REGHU, RETIRED EXECITIVE ENGINEER,
7. ANURAG, S/O. REGHU, BHUVANESWAR,
8. ARCHANA, D/O. LATE RITA REGHU,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :21/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
C.R.P. No.722 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008.
ORDER
Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.14 of 2006 in the First Additional
Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for partition and other reliefs. Revision
petitioner who is the first defendant in that suit resisted the claim for partition and
made a counter-claim for eviction of respondents 1 and 2. Case came up for trial
in the list. Respondents 1 and 2 were absent and hence the suit was dismissed
for default. Counter claim filed by the petitioner was allowed. Respondents 1
and 2 filed I.A.No.2400 of 2007 to set aside the dismissal of suit and the decree
on the counter claim. Learned First Additional Sub Judge vide the impugned
order allowed the prayer. That order is under challenge in this revision.
2. I have gone through the order under challenge. It is seen that
I.A.No.2400 of 2007 was filed within the period of limitation which itself would
indicate that there was no wilful laches on the part of respondents 1 and 2. It
was within the power of learned Sub Judge to liberally construe the words ‘good
cause’ and ‘sufficient cause’ occurring in Order IX Rules 9 and 13 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, respectively and grant relief. On going through the order under
challenge and hearing the submissions of learned counsel for revision
petitioner, I am not inclined to think there was any gross negligence or
CRP No.722/2008
2
misconduct on the part of respondents 1 and 2 requiring rejection of I.A.No.2400
of 2007. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Sub Judge
in that regard, requiring this Court to interfere in revision.
3. Learned counsel then submitted that the First Additional Sub Judge
may be directed to dispose of the suit and counter-claim as expeditiously as
possible. Learned counsel submitted that pre-trial steps are over. He prayed for
direction for time bound disposal.
Without being aware of the volume of work in that court and the work
schedule fixed, I do not think it proper or necessary to direct a time bound
disposal. If the pre-trial steps are otherwise over and suit and counterclaim are
ripe for trial, petitioners can request learned Sub Judge to expedite the trial and
disposal of the suit and counter-claim.
With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
I.A.No.2184 of 2008 shall stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks