Sadasivan vs Omana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6299 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         CRP NO. 525 OF 2019
 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2019 IN I.A.457/2017 & CMA. 10/2017
                   OF THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

    1       SADASIVAN,
            AGED 65 YEARS,
            S/O. KARUMPAN,
            REJANI NIVAS, KANANTHARKUNNAM MURI P.O.,
            WEST KALLADA VILLAGE,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT.

    2       SAROJINI,
            AGED 60 YEARS,
            W/O. SADASIVAN,
            REJANI NIVAS, KANANTHARKUNNAM MURI P.O.,
            WEST KALLADA VILLAGE,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT.
            BY ADVS.
            R.MOHANABABU
            SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE)


RESPONDENTS:

    1       OMANA,
            AGED 75 YEARS,
            VILAKKUMTHARAYIL VEETTIL KIDAPRAM MURI,
            MANROTHURUTH VILLAGE,
            KOLLAM DISTIRCT - 691502.
    2       VIJAYAN,
            AGED 70 YEARS,
            VALIYATHARAYIL VEEDU,
            KANATHARKUNNAM MURI P.O.,
            WEST KALLADA VILLAGE,
            KOLLAM - 690521.
    3       SOBHA,
            AGED 63 YEARS,
            W/O. VIJAYAN,
            VILAKKUMTHARAYIL VEETTIL,
            KIDAPRAM MURI,
 C.R.P.No.525 of 2019

                                 2

             MANROTHURUTH VILLAGE,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690521.
     4       ASSISTANT SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
             KOLLAM - 691013.
     5       SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT
             KOLLAM - 691013.
     6       TALUK SURVEYOR
             KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690518.
     7       TALUK SURVEYOR
             KUNNATHOOR, SASTHAMKOTTA - 690521.
     8       TAHASILDAR
             TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHOOR - 690521,
             SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DIST.
     9       VILLAGE OFFICER,
             VILLAGE OFFICE,
             WEST KALLADA - 691500
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
             SMT.UTHARA A.S


      THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   03.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 C.R.P.No.525 of 2019

                               3



                               ORDER

Dated this the 03rd day of June, 2022

The revision petition is filed to set aside the

judgment in CMA No.10/2017 and the order in

I.A.No.457/2017 in CMA No.10/2017 of the Court of

the Subordinate Judge, Karunagappally.

2. The revision petitioners' case in the revision

petition, shorn of exhaustive pleadings, is that; they

are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.130 of 1997 of the Court of

the Munsiff, Sasthamkotta, which is filed for fixation of

boundary and for other consequential reliefs. The suit

was once decreed on 30.01.2006. The judgment and

decree were set aside by the Court of the Subordinate

Judge, Kollam, in A.S.No.15 of 2010 and the matter

remanded back to the trial court for fresh

consideration. After remand, the case was listed for C.R.P.No.525 of 2019

trial to 26.05.2015. However, the petitioners could not

appear before the trial court and the suit was

dismissed. I.A. 744 of 2015 was filed to restore the

suit. As the 1st plaintiff was hospitalised, he could not

appear. Hence, the application was also dismissed.

Challenging the said orders, the petitioners filed CMA

No.10 of 2017 before the Court of Subordinate Judge,

Karunagappally, with I.A.No.457/2017, to condone the

delay of 640 days in filing the appeal. The appellate

court by impugned judgment and order has dismissed

the appeal and the application to condone the delay in

filing the appeal. Hence, the revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

revision petitioners and the learned counsel appearing

for respondents.

4. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by

the court below in I.A.No.457 of 2017, it can be

gathered that the revision petitioners' case was that C.R.P.No.525 of 2019

although the application for restoration of the suit was

dismissed on 22.12.2015, they were unaware of the

dismissal. They became aware of the fact only on

25.09.2017. Hence, the delay of 640 days occurred in

filing the appeal.

5. On the contrary, the respondents had

produced Exts.B1 to B4 documents to disprove the

allegation of the petitioners. As per Ext.B3, the

petitioners had filed a review petition seeking to

review the order passed in I.A. 744 of 2015. The said

application was dismissed by the trial court by Ext.B4

order on 11.04.2016.

6. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners

that they were unaware of the dismissal of the

application to restore the suit is misleading and false.

The appellate court has rightly acted upon Exts.B3 and

B4 documents and found that there was suppression of

material facts on the part of the petitioners. This Court C.R.P.No.525 of 2019

concurs and confirms the dismissal of the application

to condone the delay and consequentially the appeal.

There is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the

impugned judgment and order passed by the court

below. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and

it is hence dismissed. The parties shall bear their

respective costs.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS Judge

NR/03/06/2022