J U D G M E N T

This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.526/2021 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Respondents herein are the defendants in the Suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on admission, since the petitioners impugn the concurrent finding entered into by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the appellate court had not given opportunity to the plaintiffs to argue this case on merits and the appellate court dismissed the appeal without hearing the appellants, since this Court directed the appellate court to dispose of the same. In this connection, the learned counsel heavily relied on an affidavit filed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Copy of the same is Ext.P9. On perusal of Ext.P9, it could be noticed that one Vadakara V.V.N.Menon filed this affidavit on 20.01.2022. It is true that O.P(C).No.2450/2021 was filed by the respondents/defendants pertaining to the above appeal and the specific contention in the said Original Petition in para.8 regarding the stage of the appeal was as under:

“8. It may kindly be noted that, said C.M.Appeal was heard in detail after receipt of the Lower Court Records and the same was posted for orders also. Now the same has been adjourned to 14.02.2022 again for Lower Court Records, objection and heareing by the 1st Appellate Court; which is not justifiable. It is pertinent to note that unless the property of the 1st petitioner is disposed off immediately, his daughter's marriage will be in jeopardy; as the 1st petitioner is badly in need of funds for conducting the marriage. The respondents have instituted this C.M.Appeal only to harass and vex the petitioners herein and if the said Appeal is heard; there is every likelihood that the petitioners herein will succeed in the said Appeal. Therefore; an expeditious disposal of the said C.M.Appeal No.14 of 2021 is highly essential; otherwise serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners.”

Thus going by the contentions raised in para.8 of O.P(C).No.2450/2021, it is crystal clear that the appeal was heard in detail after receiving lower court records and the same was posted for orders. But no judgment pronounced on the date posted for the same. In view of the said allegations raised, a report was called for from the learned Sub Judge while considering O.P(C).No.2450/2021, who dealt with C.M.A.No.14/2021. As per letter dated 22.12.2021, the learned Sub Judge reported as under:

“

Both sides were heard on 01.12.2021 and adjourned the case for order to 03.12.2021. Meantime on 27.11.2021 the Stenographer of this court went on special casual leave for fifteen days. After reporting the matter to the District Court, the leave was sanctioned. But due to shortage resource people, the alternative arrangement was done only on 06.12.2021. So I could not pronounce the judgment on 3.12.2021. Therefore the same was again adjourned to 10.12.2021. Even though I got another stenographer I didn't get time for sparing to pass order as usual, because other matters also accumulated within the period between 27.11.2021 to 06.12.2021.”

4. Thus the report of the Sub Judge also is to the effect that both sides were heard on 01.12.2021 and the case was posted for judgment on 03.12.2021. But the learned Sub Judge could not pronounce the judgment on 03.12.2021 and it was adjourned to 10.12.2021 and on that day it was again adjourned to 14.02.2021 mistakenly, instead of 14.12.2021. It is pertinent to note that O.P(C).No.2450/2021 was filed on 15.12.2021 at this juncture.

Thereafter, the case was advanced to 16.12.2021.

5. It is relevant to note further that even though notice served on the respondents in O.P(C).No.2450/2021, nobody appeared on the date of hearing on 20.01.2022 and the judgment was pronounced on 21.01.2022 at 10.15 a.m. It was after pronouncing the judgment, the respondents appear