BY AD v. ARUN BABU

REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS: 1 2 3 M/S BISMI CASHEW COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, MANGADU , KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AND REMAINING PARTNER, PIN - 691015 SHIYAS HUSSAIN AGED 45 YEARS S/O AHAMMED HUSSAIN, MANAGING PARTNER -M/S BISMI CASHEW COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, MANGADU , KOLLAM RESIDING AT THANAL, TKMC P.O, KARICODE , KOLLAM, PIN - 691005 BISMITHA SHIYAS AGED 36 YEARS W/O SHIYAS HUSSAIN , PARTNER - M/S BISMI CASHEW COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, MANGADU , KOLLAM RESIDING AT THANAL, TKMC P.O, KARICODE , KOLLAM, PIN - 691005 BY ADVS. ARUN BABU ANEESHRAJ R. RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS/DEFENDENTS 1, 2 & 4: 1 L.GEETHAKUMARI AGED 56 YEARS W/O LATE BALACHANDRAN PILLAI , GIRIJA BHAVAN , VALATHUNGAL P.O, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE , KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 CRP No.259 of 2024 : 2 : 2 3 BALAJI BALACHANDRAN AGED 31 YEARS S/O LATE BALACHANDRAN PILLAI , GIRIJA BHAVAN , VALATHUNGAL P.O, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE , KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 SREE VIGNESH AGED 26 YEARS S/O LATE BALACHANDRAN PILLAI , GIRIJA BHAVAN , VALATHUNGAL P.O, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE , KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP No.259 of 2024 : 3 : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRP No.259 of 2024 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2024 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging Annexure A6 order dated 27.6.2024 in IA No.1132/2019 in OS No.33/2016 of the Additional sub Judge, Kollam.

2. It is averred that the petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs in OS No.33/2016 of the Additional Sub Court Kollam, which was filed seeking realisation of money from the defendants and their assets. The contention of the petitioners is that the original defendants owned two cashew factories and these cashew factories were agreed to be operated by the petitioners. The defendants had suppressed the pendency of a suit bearing No.OS 24/2012 of the Sub Court Kollam, wherein an injunction order was in force restraining the renewal of the factory license. During the pendency of the earlier agreement, the defendants offered their another factory to the plaintiffs for operation and they entered into an agreement. When the plaintiffs were preparing to possess the factory, they received an injunction order from the Munsiff Court, Paravoor in OS No.17/2015 restraining the plaintiffs from CRP No.259 of 2024 : 4 : disturbing the possession of one Rafi, who was a leasee in the said factory. The contention of the petitioners is that the defendants had materially suppressed the fact that there was a subsisting tenancy in respect to the said factory. It is in the said circumstances that OS No.33/2016 was filed by the plaintiffs for realisation of an amount of Rs.28,42,870/-. The suit was allowed as per Annexure 3 judgment, wherein the defendants were made ex parte due to non- appearance. Thereafter the defendants filed IA No.1132/2019 seeking to set aside the decree passed on 18.11.2019. Though the petitioners filed a detailed objection and evidence were adduced, the trial court by Annexure A6 order, allowed IA No.1132/2019, which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The petitioners specifically contended that though three grounds were stated by the defendants in their petition to set aside the ex-parte decree, none of these grounds were found to be bonafide and the trial court while issuing Ext.P6 order, did not consider the above said aspect.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The trial court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [AIR (1998) SC 3222] and M/s.GMG Engineering Industries and others v. M/s.ISSA CRP No.259 of 2024 : 5 : Green power solution and others [AIR (2015) SC 2675] took a stand that “sufficient cause” as mandated in Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has to be construed liberally especially when the delay is not inordinate and malafide and held that in the present case though there was negligence from the side of the defendants by not intimating the advocate regarding shifting of the residence, the interest of justice warrant adjudication of the dispute between the parties on merits and found that on a perusal of the petition and the documents produced from the side of the defendants, sufficient cause has been shown by them and allowed the application. While allowing the application, the hardship caused to the plaintiffs was also taken note of by the trial court and the petition was allowed on a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs.

6. A perusal of the pleadings in the Civil Revision Petition as well as the impugned order would show that though there was some delay and negligence on the part of the defendants, the court entered a finding that sufficient cause has been shown by the defendants and took a view that the interest of justice warrant adjudication of the dispute between the parties on merit. The petition has been allowed only on a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of CRP No.259 of 2024 : 6 : the view that the stand taken by the trial court that interest of justice warrant adjudication of the dispute between the parties on merits is just and proper and I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the trial court. Though I declined from interfering with Ext.P6 order, there will be a direction to the trial court to see that the trial of the case is not unduly delayed and the same shall be disposed of within the shortest time limit. With the above said observation, the above Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. sm/ Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE CRP No.259 of 2024 : 7 : APPENDIX OF CRP 259/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 Annexure A2 Annexure A3 Annexure A4 Annexure A5 Annexure A6 Annexure A7 Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT DATED 5-2-2019 IN OS 33/2016 OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT KOLLAM THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-6- 2019 IN OP ( C ) 1604/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. THE TRUE MATTER OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18- 11-2019 IN OS 33/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA 1132/2019 DATED 5-12-2019 IN OS 33/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 13-7-2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MAY BE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27- 6-2024 IN IA 1132/2019 IN OS 33/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE KOLLAM THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 24-8-2018 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN OS 33/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 30-5-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN OS 33/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM.