BETTLAL PAUL Vs. P S JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.399 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kottayam, challenges the order dated 29th November, 2010 in I.A.No.1250 of 2010, by which the court below allowed the application under Rule 9 Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure and that too on a cost of Rs.3,000/-.

(2.) THE suit was posted to 18.3.2010. THE plaintiff was working in Bombay. He was not present before court on that date. THE suit was dismissed for default. He filed application for restoration of the suit within time. THE court below held that the medical certificate produced by him could not be relied on. It was held that the plaintiff has not shown that there was sufficient cause for his absence on 18.3.2010. However, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, the court below allowed the application on costs of Rs.3000/-. THE court below thought that an opportunity should be afforded to the plaintiff to prosecute his case on the merits. THEre was no delay at all on his part in making the application. THE court below exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff. THEre is no ground to interfere with the exercise of discretion. THE Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.