C. Ramkumar vs C. Ramkumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 588 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                     OP(C).No.1549 OF 2020

 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1080/2018 IN OS 60/2016 OF SUB COURT,
                           OTTAPALAM

                             -----


PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN IA 1080/2018 IN OS 60/2016:

             C. RAMKUMAR
             AGED 54 YEARS
             S/O. CHANGARATH AMBUJAKSHI AMMA, THRIKKANGODU
             AMSOM, MANISSERI DESOM, OTTAPLAM TALUK - 676123.

             BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN IA 1080/2018 IN OS 60/2016:

             K.R. JAYARAMKUMAR
             AGED 60 YEARS
             S/O. MUSALIPATHATHU KOTTAYI LANE RAMA GUPTHAN,
             KULAPPADAM DESOM, KUMARAPUTHUR VILLAGE,
             MANNARKKAD TALUK - 691576.


     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                     SATHISH NINAN, J.
           ==================
                 O. P. (C) No.1549 of 2020
           ==================
           Dated this the 7th day of January, 2021

                           JUDGMENT

An order restoring the suit which was dismissed

for default, is under challenge by the defendant.

2. Heard Sri.Praveen K. Joy, learned counsel

for the petitioner.

3. The suit is one for recovery of money. On

the date when the suit was listed for trial,

consequent to the non-appearance of the plaintiff,

the suit was dismissed for default. The petitioners

sought for restoration in terms of Order IX Rule 9

CPC within the period of limitation. The plaintiff

contended that he had sprained his leg and was

advised rest by the Doctor consequent to which he

was not in a position to appear before the court.

He produced a medical certificate and prescription

which are marked as Exts.A1 and A2.

4. The trial court was convinced about the

explanation offered and exercised its discretion to

have the suit restored back to file. I am unable to O. P. (C) No.1549 of 2020 :- 2 :-

find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the

order impugned, warranting interference. The

original petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed. The suit is of the year 2016. The trial

court shall expedite the trial of the suit.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1549/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2018 IN OS 60/2016 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN E-COURTS OF OS 60/2016 DATED 28.05.2018 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN E-COURTS OF OS 60/2016 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.60/2016 DATED 05.03.2014 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25.05.2016 IN TOP 104.2016 OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 07.07.2018 IN OS 60/2016 BEFORE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1080/2018 IN OS NO.60/2016 DATED 25.07.2018 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA 1080/2018 IN OS 60/2016 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 2.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1080/2018 IN OS 60/2016 DATED 29.02.2020 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.

-----