BINITHA Vs. GIREESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the concurrent orders of the courts below dismissing an application for restoration of the suit dismissed for default. THE petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 247/2004 on the file of the court of Munsiff of Kodungallur which is one for injunction against trespass and destroying the barbed fence. THE second plaintiff who is a co-owner along with the first plaintiff was employed abroad and was hence represented by a power of attorney holder in the suit.

(2.) IT is stated that the power of attorney holder is a practicing lawyer at Kodungallur and that the wife of the defendant/respondent is a clerk in that office. The plaintiffs contend that they were not duly informed about the posting dates of the case by the said clerk. IT is stated that the power of attorney holder of the second plaintiff was banking on the clerk especially after he had shifted his practice to the High Court at Ernakulam. The plaintiffs contend that they knew about the dismissal of the suit only when they received notice in another suit filed by the defendant.

(3.) TRUE it is that there are latches on the part of the plaintiffs in prosecuting the suit and filing the application for restoration of the suit dismissed for default. But it appears that the power of attorney holder of the second plaintiff was a lawyer and that the wife of the defendant was a clerk in the very same office. It is possible that the second plaintiff would not have been put on notice about the actual dates of posting of the suit during certain occasions. It is also brought to my notice that the second plaintiff through his power of attorney holder was looking after the case and that the first plaintiff is a muslim lady.