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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
PINKU H. THALIATH – Appellant
Versus
CHACKO JOSEPH – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 18 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: PINKU H. THALIATH(PARTY-IN-PERSON)

The court upheld that remedies against lower court orders should be sought through appeals rather than Original Petitions when final judgments are pending.

Headnote:The petitioner, the seventh defendant in a case, sought to direct the Principal Sub-Court to issue a certified copy of an order dated 01.01.2026 regarding dismissed applications. The court noted that the petitioner, representing herself, claimed the applications were dismissed without proper notice. However, it held that interference wasn't warranted when a final judgment was posted, and remedy lies in filing an appeal post-judgment. Hence, the petition was disposed with instructions to issue the necessary copies promptly.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks certified copies of dismissed applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner/7th defen-

dant for issuing a direction to the Principal Sub Court, North Par- avur, to issue a certified copy of the order passed in I.A.Nos. 5& 6/2025 in O.S. No. 401/1999 dated 01.01.2026, and also seeking to set aside the order passed in I.A. Nos. 5& 6/2025.

2. Heard the arguments of the petitioner party in per-

son.

3. The petitioner was appearing party-in-person and stated to be a practicing advocate with 30 years of service in law, contended that she was the seventh defendant in O.S. No. 401/1999. The petitioner and her sister filed I.A. Nos. 5 & 6/2025 before the trial court, which came to be dismissed on 01.01.2026. However, copies were not supplied. Therefore, the petitioner prays that this Court issue a direction to issue such copy or carbon copy of the order. The party-in-person also submitted that the case is posted for judgment today, i.e., on 06.01.2016. Ext. P2, the case status of DCMS produced herein, reveals that the I.As. were dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- each and that the case is posted for judgment today. The petitioners have not produced any other case status for different dates to show at what stage these I.A’s came to be filed. Though the petitioner contended that some other I.As. are also pending and that no order has been passed. At this stage this Court cannot interfere when the matter is posted for final judgment. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the judg- ment or decree, the petitioner is having the remedy under the statute to file an appeal before the appropriate forum or appellate court.

4. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot interfere.

However, when the matter is posted for final judgment today, this Court can direct the trial court to issue a certified copy of the or- der or a carbon copy of the order. Even otherwise, when the suit itself is disposed of, challenging the order passed in the I.A. is not be available to the petitioner, and the same can be urged as one of the grounds before the appellate court.

Considering the same, this, Original petition is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Sub-Judge, North Paravur to issue certified copy or carbon copy of the order dated 01.01.2026 passed in I.A.Nos.5 & 6/2025 within 3 days from the date of re-

ceipt of the copy of this judgment.

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