K SAROJA Vs. SANKARASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.230 of 1998 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,35,000/- together with 12% interest per annum. The said suit was listed on 16.9.2002 for trial. Since the appellant as well as her counsel failed to appear, the suit was dismissed for default. The appellant filed an application in I.A.No.689 of 2002 for restoration of the suit. The same was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the reason given by the appellant for the absence of her counsel cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. The reason for the absence of her counsel being boycott of the Court by the lawyers.

(3.) Before us, the learned counsel for appellant contended that the counsel for the appellant did not appear on the date of hearing due to the lawyers' call to boycott the Courts. On that ground, the appellant cannot be made to suffer by the dismissal of the suit. In fact the loss sustained by the appellant because of the dismissal of the suit cannot be compensated by any other means except the restoration of the suit. The counsel's absence due to the boycott of the Court even though may not be a sufficient cause for the restoration of the suit, still, some terms can be imposed for the restoration of the suit so that the appellant can have the benefit of the trial.