KUNJAMMA Vs. LARENCE JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners would echo the heart-burns of his clients to the effect that they presented the Appeal Memorandum in A.S.S.R.No.1351 of 2007 and I.A.No.177 of 2007 to get the delay of 74 days condoned in filing the Appeal Memorandum. However, that was dismissed for default, whereupon, I.A.No.143 of 2009 was filed for getting the I.A., restored which was dismissed by the Lower Court unjustifiably. The earlier delay of 74 days was not huge. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the averments in the affidavit as found set out in the application for getting the I.A.No.177 of 2007 restored was on the ground that the second petitioner, viz. Titus John met with an accident and that the first petitioner-Kunjamma was an old lady, being the mother of P2. I.A.No.143 of 2009 was filed without any delay.

(2.) NOW , even after printing the names of the contesting respondents, there is no response. What I could glean and discern, perceive and infer is that the first Appellate Court should have been lenient in restoring the I.A.No.177 of 2007, instead of dismissing the I.A.No.143 of 2009. The old lady-P1 cannot be expected to prosecute the case effectively when she has got a son-P2. However, in this case, unfortunately the son met with an accident and that he was not in a position to pursue the matter further. Whereas, the Lower Court in its cryptic order, without considering the genuine reasons found set out in the affidavit of the petitioners, simply dismissed it warranting interference in revision. On balance, the order of the Lower Court in I.A.No.143 of 2009 is set aside and the earlier I.A. shall stand restored. Whereupon, the Lower Court is mandated to take up the I.A.No.177 of 2007 for hearing and dispose it of on merits.