SAHRUDAYA Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the first petitioner in O.P.(Pauper) No. 5 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The respondents 1 to 3 are the respondents in O.P.(Pauper) No. 5 of 2003. The O.P. ( Pauper) happened to be dismissed on 22.08.2003 for default. The petitioner filed I.A.No. 971/2004 for restoration of the O.P. which was dismissed for default. I.A.No. 992/2004 was filed for condonation of delay in 295 days in filing the restoration petition. The learned Sub Judge by Ext.P3 order dated 31.08.2005 dismissed the I.A.s.

(2.) The Writ Petition is filed for seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order and prayed for restoration of the O.P. to file after condoning the delay of 295 days in filing the restoration petition.

(3.) The O.P. was posted on 22.08.2003. On that day neither the petitioner nor her counsel was present. So the case was dismissed for default . In the affidavit in support of the above mentioned I.A.s. it is stated that the advocate clerk failed to note down the posting date of the case, therefore, his lawyer was unable to attend the case on 22.08.2003. It is further stated that the petitioner was laid up with jaundice for three weeks and thereafter she was bed ridden due to rheumatic complaints. Therefore, she could not contact her advocate in time for filing the restoration petition. Petitioner, therefore, stated in the affidavit that there is no wilful latches and deliberate inaction on her part in filing the restoration petition in time.