The decision reaffirmed the principle that a party cannot claim ignorance of a court's decision when evidence indicates knowledge, especially in delay applications.

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 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 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 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.