Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
RAJAMMA REPRESENTED BY RAJAN HER SON POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER – Appellant
Versus
HOPE PLANTATIONS LIMITED – Respondent
OP(C) 1793/2024
Restoration - Permanent Prohibitory Injunction - CPC Order IX Rule 9 - The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in restoration petitions, allowing for a decision on merits despite the absence of medical records to substantiate claims of non-appearance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Munsiff Court's order restoring a suit dismissed for default, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient cause for non-appearance due to health issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had considered the circumstances and allowed restoration to enable a decision on merits, despite the lack of medical documentation.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the restoration of the suit without sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's non-appearance due to health issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that a liberal approach should be taken in restoration petitions to ensure cases are decided on their merits.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order of the Munsiff Court, Peerumedu in Restoration Petition No.11 of 2021 in OS No.222 of 2008 dated 28.06.2024.
2. Petitioner is the defendant in OS No.222 of 2008 before the Munsiff Court, Peerumedu, one filed for permanent prohibitory injunction and for other incidental and consequential reliefs. The suit was dismissed for default on 09.03.2021 as per Ext.P3 judgment and the plaintiff filed a petition seeking restoration as Restoration Petition No.11 of 2021 in OS No.222 of 2008, wherein it is stated that, due to heart problem he could not appear before the Court on the date when the case was posted for evidence. Thereupon Ext.P5 objection was filed by the petitioner, and the learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed RP No.11 of 2021 as per Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Ext.P6 order that the present original petition has been filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner based on Order IX Rule 9 CPC submits that, restoration can be allowed only wherein there is sufficient cause shown for the non-appearance, and that no reason has been stated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though health issues was shown as a reason for non-appearance no certificate has been produced to substantiate the same.
3. It is seen that the suit was dismissed on 09.03.2021 and Ext.P4 application for restoration was filed on 05.04.2021 i.e. without much delay. The Court has also considered that no medical records were produced to establish the case of the plaintiff. The Court deemed it fit to grant another opportunity to the plaintiff so that a decision could be taken on merits. The trial Court relied on the judgment in Sarojini Amma M.C. & Others v. P. Gopalan & Others [2016 (4) KLT 352] and held that a liberal approach should be made while considering application to condone the delay and also to set aside the exparte decree, and the suit was restored on payment of cost to the petitioner herein.
4. Taking into consideration the fact that the Court has taken into consideration the rival contentions, and has taken a liberal view so that the matter could be decided on merits and restored the suit for fresh disposal, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order.
Accordingly the original petition is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
