Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ.
Yeshwanth Shenoy, S/o. Adv. V.L. Shenoy - Applicant
Versus
Adv. Sojan Pavanios Member and Others - Respondents
Unnumbered IA No. 1 of 2024 In Cont.Cas.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2023
Decided On : 18-06-2024
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION - CONTEMPT CASE - RULE 132, HIGH COURT OF KERALA (AMENDMENT), 2021 - The court discussed Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, which governs applications for certified copies by third parties. The court emphasized the necessity for compliance with procedural requirements, including the submission of a duly verified petition and affidavit stating the purpose for the request. The interpretation of these rules was crucial in determining the validity of the applicant's request, ultimately influencing the court's decision to sustain the defects noted by the Registry and require the applicant to re-present the application in accordance with the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a third party in a contempt case, filed an interlocutory application seeking a certified copy of documents related to the case. The Registry noted defects in the application, leading to its listing before the court. The applicant argued that the Registry treated lawyers differently and that the court had the power to grant relief despite the defects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant's application did not comply with the requirements of Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, as amended in 2021. The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and sustained the defects noted by the Registry, requiring the applicant to re-present the application correctly.
Issues: Whether the applicant's interlocutory application complied with Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, and whether the court could grant relief despite the noted defects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adherence to procedural rules is essential for the administration of justice. The requirements of Rule 132 must be met for a third party to obtain certified copies, and the court has the authority to enforce these rules to prevent misuse of the judicial process.
Final Decision: The court sustained the defects noted by the Registry and directed the applicant to re-present the application in compliance with the requirements of Rule 132.
ORDER :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Un-numbered I.A.No.1 of 2024
Applicant, a third party to this contempt case, has filed this interlocutory application under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, for issuance of a certified copy of the notice, petition, connected exhibits/annexures and the affidavit filed by respondent No.23 in the contempt case. In the interlocutory application filed on 07.06.2024, the Registry noted certain defects. Therefore, the unnumbered interlocutory application is listed before the Bench.
2. Heard the applicant-third party, who appeared in person, the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Senior Counsel for the 23rd respondent in the contempt case.
3. The applicant argued that the Registry treats lawyers differently. A third party application filed as I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Cont. Case (Crl.) No.2 of 2023, under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, which was captioned as a verified petition, which contained only an affidavit sworn to by the applicant, without a proper cause title, was numbered by the Registry. After the substitution of the Rules in Chapter X of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, by the Rules of the High Court of Kerala (Amendment), 2021, such an application by a third party has to satisfy the requirements of Rule 132. Without noticing the same, that application was allowed by this Court on 19.03.2024. The applicant has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Cont. Case (Crl.) No.2 of 2023 and the order dated 19.03.2024. The applicant herein is the respondent in that contempt case. The applicant would argue that since procedure is considered to be the handmade of justice, this Court has ample power to grant the relief sought for in this interlocutory application, even when the application is defective in view of the provisions under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala.
4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Senior Counsel for the 23rd respondent in the contempt case contended that when the interlocutory application made by the applicant is not one as per the requirements of Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, Registry cannot be found fault with in not numbering the same. The learned Senior Counsel for the 23rd respondent pointed out that the affidavit filed in support of this interlocutory application contains various allegations against the 23rd respondent, which cannot be made in an affidavit filed in support of an application filed under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala.
5. The application is captioned as a verified petition under Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala. It is in the form of an affidavit sworn to by the applicant, which is attested by a lawyer. Registry noted defects, in view of the provisions under sub-rule (2) of Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, as substituted by the Rules of the High Court of Kerala (Amendment), 2021, vide Notification No.DI-1/20613/2018 dated 08.12.2021 published in Kerala Gazette Vol.11 dated 11.01.2022.
6. Chapter X of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala deals with certified copies. Rules 128 to 138 in Chapter X were substituted by the Rules of High Court of Kerala (Amendment), 2021. Prior to that amendment, an application for copies by strangers was governed by the provisions under Rule 129, which reads thus;
7. After the substitution of Rules 128 to 138 by the Rules of High Court of Kerala (Amendment), 2021, Rule 132 deals with application for copies by pe
The court established that compliance with procedural rules, specifically Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, is mandatory for third parties seeking certified copies of court documents....
Procedural law must facilitate justice, allowing flexibility in document production to avoid hindrances in the administration of justice.
Procedural law must facilitate justice, not obstruct it, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over technicalities.
Point of Law : Once an appeal is duly entertained without the production of a certified copy of the Decree sheet with it and neither the memorandum of appeal was rejected nor returned, as provided un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
