AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Third respondent appears. Notice to respondents 1 and 2 returned as unclaimed. It is declared that notice to those respondents have been duly served.
Plaintiff appeals against a common order dismissing an application to restore a suit for money dismissed for default and an application to condone 191 days in filing that application for restoration. It sued the respondents for a decree for recovery of Rs. 72,23,043.96 with future interest. That happened to be dismissed for default. The application for restoration was filed on ground that on the date when the suit stood posted in the special list, the plaintiff''s Counsel had applied seeking that it be adjourned since the authorised agent of the plaintiff company could not be available in Kochi to tender evidence. The fact that such an application was filed is not in dispute. The dismissal of the suit was essentially on account of non-appearance of the witness to tender evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. The application to condone delay was supported by affidavit attributing the delay to the time taken for getting printed copies of the judgment dismissing the suit for default. Having regard to the plaint claim of TISCO and other relevant aspects, including the contention in the plaint, we deem it appropriate to restore the suit. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay and also for restoration of the suit, however, on terms.
In the result, the impugned order is set aside and I.A. Nos. 3789/07 and 3790/07 in O.S.71/02 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam are allowed restoring O.S.71/02 to file on condition that an amount of Rs. 7,000/- is paid as costs, payable to the Counsel appearing for the respondents herein, within a period of four weeks from now. The FAO is ordered accordingly.