SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
DR. MONSON MAVUNGAL – Appellant
Versus
BINU BABURAJ – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 3188 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.G.SREEJITH, SMT.ANJANA A., SMT.INDU MENON M., SMT.ANJU P.S., SMT.VIDYAJITH M., SMT.SWAPNALEKHA K.T.

The court emphasizes the importance of timely access to judicial documents for fair legal representation.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition is filed under the purview of civil procedural rules seeking certified copies of orders from the lower court. Facts of the Case: The petitioner, currently imprisoned, alleges improper handling of eviction orders during the inspection by the Commissioner.

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the petitioner's complaint regarding non-service of order copies and non-attendance at the inspection.

Issues: The court framed the issue around the right to access court documents and the implications of service of judicial orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The necessity for compliance with procedural safeguards in ensuring that parties have access to documents that impact their rights was underscored.

Result: The original petition is disposed of with the direction to the Munsiff’s Court to issue a carbon copy or certified copy of the order as per the specified dates.

Table of Content
1. access to judicial documents (Para 1)
2. procedural fairness in eviction (Para 2)

JUDGMENT Dated this the 8th day of December, 2025 This original petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing directions to the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam, to issue the certified copy or carbon copy of the order dated 05.12.2025 passed in E.A No.1119/2025 and I.A No.1120 of 2025 as per E.A No.1123/2025 and E.A.1124/2025.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is stated to be in prison at Thrissur, where the court had passed an eviction order. He states that the petitioner waited at his residence for the Commissioner, but the Commissioner did not come, and the inspection was carried out only after the petitioner left the premises. The petitioner then filed an application seeking adjournment of the inspection, but the trial court dismissed it, and he was not served with a copy of the order. Hence, the petitioner is before this court.

Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of with the direction to the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam, to issue a carbon copy or certified copy of the order dated 05.12.2025 passed in E.A No.1119/2025 and I.A No.1120 of 2025 as per E.A No.1123/2025 and E.A.1124/2025, on or before 10.12.2025 at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top