Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
K.V XAVIER – Appellant
Versus
PETER AUGUSTINE – Respondent
MJC NO. 309 OF 2025-E|RFA NO.42 OF 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K.RAJESHKUMAR, MANOJ V GEORGE, T.N.BINDU, JIJO JOSE
For the Respondents: T.SETHUMADHAVAN, N. DEEPA, DEEPA NARAYANAN, P.B.PRADEEP, TOMY CHACKO, VISHNU PRADEEP, KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN, VANDANA MENON, PREETHI. P.V., K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

Court allows restoration of appeal for non-prosecution due to sufficient justification related to inability to appear.

Headnote:The Court examined the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution on grounds of the first appellant's ill health and lack of representation on 16.09.2025. The Court found sufficient reasons for non-appearance and noted that the matter had been remanded by the Supreme Court for fresh hearing on merits. The MJC was therefore allowed, restoring the appeal for consideration. (Paragraphs 1-4) The main issue considered was the justification for restoring the appeal regarding non-prosecution. The Court reasoned that the affidavit and medical documentation provided corroborated the appellants' claims of inability to represent the case. (Paragraphs 2-4) Resultantly, the MJC was allowed and the previous appeal reinstated.

Table of Content
1. sufficient reason for absence established. (Para 2)
2. appeal restored for hearing on merits. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

The appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution on 16.09.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that the 1^st appellant, who was conducting the case on behalf of other appellants also, was laid up and could not give necessary instructions to the counsel on time and therefore, the matter could not be represented. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Annexure-A2 is the medical certificate.

3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the affidavit filed along with the MJC and the counter affidavit, I am satisfied that sufficient reason has been shown for the non-appearance of the appellants on 16.09.2025.

4. The learned counsel on both sides pointed out that the appeal has been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for fresh consideration on merits.

The appeal has to be heard on merits.

Accordingly, MJC is allowed and the appeal and all pending interlocutory applications shall stand restored to file.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMMURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JK.V XAVIER – AppellantVersusPETER AUGUSTINE – RespondentMJC NO. 309 OF 2025-E|RFA NO.42 OF 2018

Court allows restoration of appeal for non-prosecution due to sufficient justification related to inability to appear.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
K.V XAVIER – Appellant
Versus
PETER AUGUSTINE – Respondent
MJC NO. 309 OF 2025-E|RFA NO.42 OF 2018