Kerala High Court
Radha vs Executive Engineer on 3 February, 2014
Author: V.Chitambaresh
Bench: V.Chitambaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/14TH MAGHA, 1935
CRP.No. 108 of 2011 ( )
------------------------
CMA 23/2009 of THE DISTRICT COURT,KASARAGOD
RPIA NO. 1937/2009 IN OS NO. 341/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------------------------
RADHA, W/O.RAGHAVAPATALI
RESIDING AT PELATHADKA HOUSE,
BAYAR VILLAGE AND POST
KASARAGOD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D ROADS DIVISION
PILIKUNJE, KASARAGOD PO, KASARAGOD. 671 121.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLELCTORATE, KASARAGOD,
CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR. 671 121.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RINNI STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
--------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 108 OF 2011
------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2014
ORDER
Every endeavour should be made to have the lis disposed of on merits rather than allowing a suit to get dismissed for default. This is particularly so since the plaintiff in the instant case asserts that a portion of her property was sliced off unauthorisedly by the defendants for the purpose of widening a road. The mere fact that the plaintiff had quoted Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure instead of Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the application for restoration should not have weighed with the court below.
2. The plaintiff has a definite case that she was laid up with fever and head ache on the day on which the suit was listed for trial. The same was attempted to be substantiated by a medical certificate. There is no delay in applying for restoration and the court below should have allowed the suit to be restored for disposal on merits in the circumstances. 2 C.R.P.No. 108/2011
3. The impugned orders are set aside and the suit in O.S. No. 341/2007 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Kasaragod is restored to file. The court below is directed to dispose of the suit before the court closes for summer recess.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd