The main legal point established is the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under O. IX, R.9 CPC for restoration of suits dismissed for default, and the misapplication of O. VIII, R.6A regarding the allowance of counter claims.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The above mentioned Civil Revision Petition, Appeals and Civil Miscellaneous Cases are filed by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. a Government of Kerala undertaking, who is the plaintiff in all the suits.

2. Plaintiff-corporation had entered into various agreements with respondents-defendants for the purpose of cutting and removing of rubber trees from their plantation. According to the plaintiff, defendants committed breach of the agreements and consequently they filed three suits, O.S. No. 73,74 and 75 of 1991 before the Munsiff s Court, Perambra and five suits, O.S. Nos. 47,51,52,45 and 50 of 1991 before the Sub Court, Quilandy. Three suits which were filed before the Munsiff s Court, Perambra were subsequently transferred to Sub Court, Quilandy and renumbered as O.S. Nos. 41,42 and 43 of 1995, and ordered to be jointly tried along with O.S. No. 50 of 1991 and other connected cases by order in LA, No. 1352 of 1992.

3. In all the suits, defendants filed their written statements and also raised counter claim against the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a list of witnesses to be examined on 7.11,1992. One of the witnesses to be examined on the side of the plaintiff was one L. Krishnan Poti, a former Manager of the Perambra Estate during the relevant period. Learned Sub Judge on 30.5.1995 ordered the suits to be listed for evidence on 1.8.1995. on 26.7.1995, Manager of the Perambra Estate of the Corporation received a letter from Krishnan Poti, along with a medical certificate, intimating that he would not be in a position to travel from Kanyakumari to Quilandy, and requested to make alternative arrangement for taking his evidence. On receipt of the letter, plaintiff filed a petition, LA. No. 1001 of 1995 before the Sub Court under 0.26 R.1, read with 0.26 R.19 and S.151 CPC on 29.7.1995 for issue of a commission examine the said witness. Petition was posted for counter on 1.8.1995. Medical certificate stated that witness was suffering from kidney disorder, hyertension and diabetic. Defendants did not file any counter affidavit to the said petition, nor opposed the same. Petition was taken up to 1.8.1995 and learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition and granted two days time to produce the witness, and posted the suits for further evidence on 3.8.1995.

4. Against the dismissal of I. A. No. 1001 of 1995 plaintiff had made arrangements for filing Revision Petition before this Court. Since a copy of the order was not obtained, plaintiff filed LA. No. 1029 of 1995 on 2.8.1995 for adjournment of the suits. That application was also not opposed by the defendants. However on 3.8.1995, learned Sub Judge dismissed the application for adjournment.

5. Learned Sub Judge on 3.8.1995 itself dismissed all the eight suits for default and allowed all the counter claims. It is necessary to extract the order of the learned Sub Judge; which is as follows:

"Suit is for money.

No witness and plaintiff are present today inspite of the directions contained in LA. No. 1001 of 1995. Counsel for the plaintiff are present. But for want of the presence of the plaintiff and their witness, suit is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, counter claim is allowed."

6. Plaintiff then filed 1. A. Nos. 1220,1221,1222,1223,1224,1.225,1226 and 1227 of 1995 in O.S. Nos. 45/91, 47/91, 50/91, 51/91, 52/91, 41/95 and 43/95, 42/95 respectively, under O. IX, R.9 CPC to set aside the order of dismissal and restore the suits. In the meanwhile, plaintiff also filed CRP No. 2558 of 1995 against the order in LA. No. 1001 of 1995 dismissing the application for issue of a commission to examine the former Manager of the Estate.

7. Against the judgment and decree dismissing the suits and allowing the counter, claims, plaintiff filed A.S. Nos. 50/96,763/95,749/95,49/96,762/95,141/96,142/96 and 789 of 1995 before this Court. While so, Sub Court took up for consideration all the applications filed for restoration of the suits. The Court dismissed al