2025:KER:27022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 FAO NO. 137 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2023 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2022 IN AS NO.107 OF 2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT:/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF SUNIL THOMAS AGED 51 YEARS, S/O K.K.THOMAS, RESIDING AT SABALAM ARA 104, BEACH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695007 BY ADVS. J.ABHILASH VIMAL BHASKAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: J. SARAMMA AGED 70 YEARS, W/O B.G.PERREIRA, RESIDING AT 'EMMANUEL', T.C.14/556 (3), NANDAVANAM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 BY ADVS. K.SHAJ 2025:KER:27022 F.A.O. No.137 of 2024 -: 2 :- BEENA N.KARTHA(K/671/1995) ARUN CHAND(K/000860/2016) BHARAT VIJAY P.(K/000976/2018) MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON(K/739/2020) SAUMYA.P.S(K/003383/2022) GOPIKA GOPAL(K/643/2023) KEVIN JAMES(K/001344/2018) ARCHANA P.P.(K/4093/2023) SHEHROON PATEL A.K.(K/743/2025) DEVADATH D.(K/000253/2025) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27022 SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. No.137 of 2024 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Sathish Ninan, J. The applications filed by the appellant, seeking restoration of his appeal on condoning the delay of 90 days, was dismissed by the District Court, against which he is in appeal. 2. On 09.03.2022, when the appeal was listed for hearing, there was no representation for the appellant. The appeal was dismissed for default. Though restoration of appeal was sought with a delay of 90 days, the court found that the delay was not explained. 3. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. 2025:KER:27022 F.A.O. No.137 of 2024 -: 2 :- 4. It is the case of the appellant that, since the counsel, who was appearing for the appellant was engaged in another Court, he had entrusted the matter to one of his friend lawyer to represent for him. However, the said counsel omitted to represent the case. This resulted in dismissal. The counsel were unaware of the dismissal of the appeal. As soon as it was noticed, a restoration application along with delay petition were filed. 5. Though we find that the reason for the delay has not been explained in detail in the affidavit, we notice that the dismissal and the delay occurred on account of the inadvertent omission of the counsel. The delay involved is only 90 days. The appeal is of the year 2021. It is trite that every endavour shall be made by the Court to have the lis decided on merits rather than a disposal on default. We are of the opinion that 2025:KER:27022 F.A.O. No.137 of 2024 -: 3 :- an opportunity can be granted to the appellant to have his appeal heard and disposed of on merits. 6. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The applications will stand allowed. The appeal, A.S.No.107 of 2021 of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, will stand restored back to file. The Court shall hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, on or before 30.05.2025. Parties to appear before the District Court on 04.04.2025. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE yd