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) 10141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
SUDHEEP KUMAR S/O.MADHAVAN VISHNU BHAVANAM – Appellant
Versus
DEVAKI KUNJAMMA ANANDAVALLI KUNJAMMA – Respondent
R.P NO. 78 OF 2026 | RSA NO.196 OF 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt.M.Suseela, Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, Shri.V.N.Madhusudanan, Smt.R.Udaya Jyothi, Smt. Keerthi B. Chandran, Shri.Vijayan Pillai P.K.
For the Respondents: Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai

The absence of counsel during a hearing can justify a review of a court's prior judgment if it leads to significant prejudice.

Headnote:The review petition concerns the appeal judgment of 28.11.2025, where the review petitioner claims lack of representation caused them prejudice. The court acknowledges the senior counsel's explanation and finds it sufficient to allow review under the relevant provisions. The non-appearance is ruled acceptable for reconsideration.

Table of Content
1. review petition initiation and grounds for review. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding counsel's non-appearance. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's acceptance of non-appearance as grounds for review. (Para 4)

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------

R.P. No.78 of 2026 -------------------------------

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026 ORDER This review petition is preferred by the 1st respondent in the appeal/plaintiff in the suit contending that the judgment rendered by this Court on 28.11.2025, without hearing the counsel is to be reviewed.

2. Heard Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel for the review petitioner and Dr.V.N.Shankarjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the RSA.

3. Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, in all fairness submitted that his inability to make alternative arrangements on the day had caused serious prejudice to the review petitioner, inasmuch as, none represented the respondents in the appeal, when the case was called for hearing. Therefore, he requests the Court to condone his non appearance and that an opportunity to advance arguments on the merits of the appeal be granted to him.

4. Per contra, Dr.V.N.Shankarjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the non appearance of the counsel is not a ground under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that by itself does not constitute sufficient grounds to review the judgment.

On considering these submissions, this Court finds that the reasoning stated by the learned counsel can be certainly accepted and that there is nothing to doubt the genuineness of the statement made across the Bar by the learned counsel. Considering the fact that the learned counsel for the review petitioner is the senior member of the Bar and this Court does not find any reason to doubt of the aforesaid submission. Hence this Court is inclined to recall the judgment dated 28.11.2025 in allowing R.S.A No.196 of 2016.

Accordingly, the judgment under review is recalled and the R.S.A is taken on Board for final hearing with consent.

Sd/-

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