Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
T.D. RAVINDRANATHAN KARTHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43878 OF 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SIBI THOMAS JACOB, SRI.V.S.NOWSHAD, SRI.V.P.REMESH, SHRI.BIGU K.G., SHRI.P.DEEPAK (SR.)
For the Respondents: SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SHRI.HALVI K.S., SHRI.M.P.RAMNATH, SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN, SMT.P.R.REENA, SHRI.BEPIN PAUL, SMT.S.SANDHYA, SRI.SHALU VARGHESE, SMT.UMA R.KAMATH, SRI.K.J.SEBASTIAN, SHRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL), SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE, SRI.ANTONY THARIAN, SMT.SHANTHI JOHN, SMT.V.SHYLAJA, SMT.STEFFY V.J., SMT.ANCY JOY, SMT.LEEJI A.S., SHRI.AROKIA JAMES
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SIBI THOMAS JACOB, SRI.V.S.NOWSHAD, SRI.V.P.REMESH, SHRI.BIGU K.G., SHRI.P.DEEPAK (SR.)
For the Respondents: SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SHRI.HALVI K.S., SHRI.M.P.RAMNATH, SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN, SMT.P.R.REENA, SHRI.BEPIN PAUL, SMT.S.SANDHYA, SRI.SHALU VARGHESE, SMT.UMA R.KAMATH, SRI.K.J.SEBASTIAN, SHRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL), SEI.M.VARGHESE VARGHESE, SRI.ANTONY THARIAN, SMT.SHANTHI JOHN, SMT.V.SHYLAJA, SMT.STEFFY V.J., SMT.ANCY JOY, SMT.LEEJI A.S., SHRI.AROKIA JAMES
Rights to sue do not survive post-mortem, leading to dismissal of writ petition as infructuous.
Headnote:This judgment addresses a writ petition filed by the petitioner regarding educational rights, asserting that the petitioner expired prior to the judgment date, rendering the case infructuous. Consequently, the court dismisses the petition while leaving the raised contentions open for future consideration. The court determined that rights to sue do not survive post-mortem, adhering to established procedural laws concerning the continuation of suits in the event of the death of a party. The petitioner’s death led to the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, a ruling articulated in the present order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner expired, case became infructuous. (Para 1) |
| 2. dismissal of writ petition as infructuous. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
It is submitted that the writ petitioner expired on
15.09.2025.
2. Since admittedly the right to sue does not survive this writ petition has become infructuous.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
However, the contentions raised in this writ petition are left open. Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE SMF
