Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SEBASTIAN.K.G. – Appellant
Versus
MANJU JOBAN – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1918 OF 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY, SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH

Petitions can be dismissed for lack of representation and non-prosecution.

Headnote:In the High Court of Kerala, the petitioner filed OP

(C) NO. 1918 OF 2019, claiming that on 08.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. The court determined that the absence warranted dismissal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the court upheld the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

When the matter was taken up on 08.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today also, there is no representation. Hence, the original petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

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) 13883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMP. KRISHNA KUMAR, JSEBASTIAN.K.G. – AppellantVersusMANJU JOBAN – RespondentOP(C) NO. 1918 OF 2019

Petitions can be dismissed for lack of representation and non-prosecution.

Headnote:In the High Court of Kerala, the petitioner filed OP(C) NO. 1918 OF 2019, claiming that on 08.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. The court determined that the absence warranted dismissal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the court upheld the dismissal of the petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SEBASTIAN.K.G. – Appellant
Versus
MANJU JOBAN – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1918 OF 2019

Headnote:In the High Court of Kerala, the petitioner filed OP

(C) NO. 1918 OF 2019, claiming that on 08.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. The court determined that the absence warranted dismissal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the court upheld the dismissal of the petition.