Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
STEPHEN JOHN – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 400 OF 2025|DRC NO.183 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BOBBY GEORGE, SRI.JOY C. PAUL, SHRI.NOBLE GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

Procedural dismissals of petitions are valid under applicable rules when a not pressed memo is filed.

Headnote:The appeal concerning OP (DRT) No. 400 of 2025 involves a petition where the petitioner's not pressed memo leads the court to dismiss the original petition without further examination. The court's findings hinge on procedural grounds rather than a substantive ruling regarding the merits of the case. The outcome highlights the procedural flexibility available in debt recovery actions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner has filed a not pressed memo.

In view of the not pressed memo filed, the original petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

Scan Me!

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

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBASANT BALAJI, JSTEPHEN JOHN – AppellantVersusCANARA BANK – RespondentOP (DRT) NO. 400 OF 2025|DRC NO.183 OF 2023

Procedural dismissals of petitions are valid under applicable rules when a not pressed memo is filed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
STEPHEN JOHN – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 400 OF 2025|DRC NO.183 OF 2023