Suriliyamma vs Arundathi
2022 Latest Caselaw 165 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
        TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
                                CRP NO. 18 OF 2022
        AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMA 2/2019 OF SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA
        IA 1570/2017 IN OS 259/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:

            SURILIYAMMA
            AGED 75 YEARS
            W/O.KAMARAJ, KAALIVILASAM HOUSE
            PRAKANDAM KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE
            UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK
            IDUKKI DISTRICT
            RAVI S/O. KAMARAJ,
            AGED 51 YEARS,
            KAALIVILASAM HOUSE
            PRAKANDAM KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE
            UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT
            BY ADVS.
            LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
            REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
            TOM E. JACOB


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

            ARUNDHATHI
            W/O.PARAMANANTHAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
            PAMPADUMPARA KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE
            UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK
            IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 554

     THIS   CIVIL    REVISION   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP NO. 18 OF 2022
                                   2


                                 ORDER

Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022

The judgment dated 02.12.2020 in CMA 2/2019 on the file of

the Sub Court, Kattappana is under challenge in this Civil Revision

Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in

O.S.No.259/2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kattappana. While

the suit was pending, the defendants failed to appear before the

court and the same resulted in passing of ex parte decree.

Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.1569/2017 to set

aside ex parte decree and also filed I.A.No.1570/2017 to condone

the delay of 1020 days. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, the delay was occasioned since PW2, a mediator in this

case intervened in this matter and he had settled the dispute.

Accordingly, both parties were directed not to proceed with the

suit.

3. The trial court as well as the first Appellate Court

appraised the evidence and found that sufficient cause not

established to condone the delay of 1020 days. In the Appellate

Court judgment in paragraph No.19, the contention raised by the CRP NO. 18 OF 2022

petitioners had been addressed by giving emphasis to the

evidence given by PW2, so called mediator. The same is extracted

hereunder.

"19. PW2 has admitted that he was involved in the negotiation talks between the parties. According to him, second petitioner, respondent and her son participated in the settlement talks. There was a financial transaction between the parties, the respondent could not repay the loan amount. PW2 has asserted in his chief examination that the settlement talks were conducted in April 2014, and parties agreed to withdraw their respective case. But in cross- examination, he has stated that the mediation talks were conducted in the first month of 2014. Since there was no progress in mediation talks, the parties were directed to approach the court for their relief. It is evident that mediation talks were conducted before listing of the suit for trial. The evidence tendered by PW2 does not show that he conducted the mediation talks in November, 2014. Even after failure of mediation talks, the petitioners did not participate in the trial of their case. The contention of the petitioners that they were not aware of the result of the suit and they were under bonafide belief that the respondent would withdraw the suit can only be taken with a pinch of salt."

4. Going by the narration as extracted above, it could be

noticed that mediation and the advice given by the mediator not

proceed with matters could not be found. To the contrary, the

evidence of PW2, the mediator is that he advised the parties to CRP NO. 18 OF 2022

proceed with the suit to address their grievance. Thus, the main

reason asserted by the petitioner by way of sufficient cause has

been negatived by the evidence of PW2.

In view of the matter, while seeking revision, I am not

inclined to re-appreciate the evidence to have a contra finding

after unsettling concurrent findings based on evidence passed by

the trial court as well as the Appellate Court. Therefore, the

revision petition lacks merits and it is accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr CRP NO. 18 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF CR.P.NO.18/2022

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITIS

ANNEXURE-1 THE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.259/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KATTAPPANA

ANNEXURE-2 THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONERS HEREIN AS THE DEFENDANTS IN O.S.NO.259/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT

ANNEXURE-2(a) THE COPY OF THE REPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN O.SNO.259/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KATTAPPANA

ANNEXURE-3 THE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN O.SNO.259/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KATTAPPANA

ANNEXURE-3(a) THE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND SURVEY PLAN IN O.S.NO.259/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT KATTAPPANA