JUDGMENT

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J, This appeal is against an order refusing to restore a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract for sale. That order was consequential on the refusal to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration. We have seen the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed in support thereof. After the dismissal of the suit, according to the plaintiff, there was an attempt for negotiation and out of court settlement and the application for restoration was filed when that did not come through. This version appears to be probabilised by the fact that there was yet another suit, O.S. 155 of 2008, for partition between the defendants. It is stated that initially the appellant was also a party to that suit. However, he was removed from the party array at the instance of the plaintiff therein. It is also stated that an FAO.328/2009. 2 application for joint trial of that suit along with O.S. 136 of 2008, from which this appeal arises, was also dismissed.

2. We also find that by the order dated 27.6.2009 dismissing the application to condone the delay, the court below did not really consider the ground projected in the app