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) 5286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
SMITHA MARY THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
MR. TOMY JOHN – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 3160 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.M.UMA DEVI
For the Respondents: SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN, SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY), SRI.K.M.RAPHY, SRI.BRISTO S PARIYARAM, SMT.MINNU DARWIN, SMT.RESHMA RAJESH, SRI.SAVIO AUGUSTINE

Ensuring procedural fairness is crucial in judicial hearings to inform parties of their rights and responsibilities.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The court emphasizes the need for procedural fairness in judicial proceedings. Facts of the Case: The petitioner argues that the lower court failed to follow proper procedure regarding the hearings on I.A.No.3/2025 and I.A.No.5/2025.

Findings of Court:
The court identified that there was no posting for pronouncing orders and highlighted the necessity for a clear process.

Issues: The core issues include whether the lower court followed proper procedure and whether parties were adequately heard.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that fairness in posting cases and hearing parties is vital and instructed the lower court to follow due process.

Result: The court set aside the orders of the lower court regarding I.A.No.3 of 2025 and I.A.No.5 of 2025.

JUDGMENT

The only grievance of the petitioner is that after hearing I.A.No.3 of 2025 the court had listed the case on 01.12.2025 for counter and hearing on I.A.No.6 of 2025 and for written statement. But on 01.12.2025, the case was not called and instead orders had been pronounced on I.A.No.3 of 2025 and I.A.No.5 of 2025. It is submitted that the respondents 2 to 4 who had been set ex parte had filed applications for setting aside the ex parte order and they had not been heard in the matter. It is also pointed out that the case was not posted on 01.12.2025 for pronouncing orders on I.A.No.3 of 2025 and I.A.No.5 of 2025. The 1st respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit, producing the order dated 01.12.2025 as Ext.R1B. The order is an elaborate order. I do not propose to go into the merits of the order. It appears from the proceedings which have been produced as Ext.P6 that there was no posting on 01.12.2025 for pronouncing orders. The court could have posted the case for orders and passed orders. It would appear that the purpose of posting which was hearing on I.A.No.6 of 2025 and for filing of a written statement was also not done on that day and it was merely adjourned to

05.01.2026.

In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the court below should pass fresh orders after following the procedure. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of Ext.R1B but is only indicating that the procedure should be fair and parties should know the purpose for which the case is posted on a particular day. For the above purpose, Ext.R1B order in I.A.No.3 of 2025 and I.A.No.5 of 2025 is set aside.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE mpm APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 3160 OF 2025 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.

1109 OF 2025.

Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY I.A. NO. 3 OF 2025.

Exhibit P-3 TRUE TYPED OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN IA 3 OF 2025.

Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION DATED 1ST NOVEMBER, 2025.

Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF TO IA NO. 5 OF

2025.

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