Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
MANAVENDRA SARMAN.G @ MANAVENDRA VARMA YOGATHIRIPPAD – Appellant
Versus
PRAJEESH – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 612 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH, SMT.RINCY KHADER, SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI, SMT.NAFIYA RASHEED E.
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition to examine a plaintiff through an Advocate Commissioner due to ambiguity in submitted evidence requests.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment pertains to civil procedure concerning the original petition filed to challenge the order in an ongoing suit. Facts of the Case: The petitioner seeks to restrain the respondents from spreading defamatory messages on social media.
Findings of Court:
The rejection order cited ambiguity in the requests for examination through an Advocate Commissioner.
Issues: The court frames whether the rejection was justified due to lack of clarity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the dismissal citing insufficient particulars in the applications.
Result: The original petition fails and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed seeking to set aside order dated 20.01.2026 in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in O.S.No.178 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit seeking to restrain the respondents from spreading false, baseless, malicious and defamatory messages in the social media groups like Facebook, Whatsapp, etc. The suit was listed for trial on 06.01.2026 and the petitioner has already filed proof affidavit on 05.01.2026. Petitioner also preferred two applications, one requesting to take evidence through an Advocate Commissioner and the other for accepting the digital evidence. The court has by order dated 20.01.2026 rejected the petition stating that it lacks clarity and has traces of ambiguity with regard to the particulars of rituals and the dates on which the petitioner is to perform the rituals. The petitioner is only 34 years old and merely because he is an ascetic or he has to perform rituals, orders cannot be issued for examining the plaintiff through an Advocate Commissioner.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the order.
The original petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
