Union Of India And Others vs E.Unnoli(Died) And Others on 26 July, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MJC.No. 304 of 2010()



1. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. E.UNNOLI(DIED) AND OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN,SENIOR PANEL COUNSE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :26/07/2010

 O R D E R
                        THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                       --------------------------------------
                        C.M.Appl.No.540 of 2010
                                        in
                          M.J.C.No.304 of 2010
                                      and
                          M.J.C.No.304 of 2010
                       --------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010.

                                         ORDER

These applications are for restoration of the appeal

dismissed for default on 23-12-2009 and to condone the delay of 178

days in filing the applications. It is stated that term of counsel

appearing for petitioners had expired and the case file was not

returned to the Assistant Solicitor General of India for reallotting

the file and that fact of dismissal for default came to the notice of

counsel concerned only on 29-06-2010. Learned counsel submitted

that there was no willful latches on the part of petitioners.

Application is opposed by the respondent. It is pointed out that

there is sufficient reason for condonation of delay or restoring the

appeal dismissed for default.

2. It is seen from the judgment of this court that when the

appeal came up for hearing on 22-12-2009 counsel for respondent

was present and requested for an early hearing of the matter

considering the difficulties being experienced by respondents 3 to 8.

Counsel for petitioners/appellants was not present and hence the

2

appeal was posted on 23-12-2009. That day also the same thing

happened. It is thereon that appeal was dismissed for default.

Petitioner may have its own reasons to claim that it was not aware

of the dismissal of the appeal. But fact remained that on account of

continuous absence of counsel for petitioner the appeal was

dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case I am inclined to allow the application but on terms of cost. It is

directed that these applications will be allowed on condition that

petitioners paid to respondent Nos.3 to 8 through counsel

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) by way of cost within two

weeks from this day.

Post after two weeks.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

Sbna/-0