SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
SUNITHA.N.S – Appellant
Versus
RENTI HARIDAS – Respondent
MAT.APPEAL NO. 996 OF 2025 | MAT.APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.K.RAZIA
For the Respondents: SHRI.E.C.BIJU, SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

Failure to restore original petitions precludes consideration of appeals on merits.

Headnote:The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn since the appellant failed to apply for restoration of Original Petitions as per Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant's request for withdrawal was noted, allowing all statutory remedies to remain available without consideration of the merits of the case. The court permitted the appellant to obtain certified copies of the judgment post-application.

Table of Content
1. appellant's failure to restore petitions. (Para 1)
2. inability to proceed without prior restoration. (Para 2)
3. appeal dismissed; statutory rights preserved. (Para 3 , 4)

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Smt. K. K. Rasiya – learned counsel for the appellant, argued these appeals for a considerable period of time today. She asserted that the factual findings of the learned Family Court in the judgments are not accurate; and that her client was, in fact, represented through counsel, who had unfortunately not told her about the postings. We, however, asked her whether her client had moved the learned Family Court, under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’), to have the Original Petitions restored; to which, she replied saying that her instructions are that her client attempted to do so, but that the applications for the same had not been “considered”, since she did not have a “proper”

lawyer on account of financial distress.

2. Whatever be the explanation that Smt. K.

K. Rasiya makes, it is evident that, unless the appellant had applied for the restoration of the Original Petition before the learned Family Court itself, it would not be possible for her to prosecute this appeal on its merits, since she had lead no evidence.

3. Being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, Smt. K. K. Rasiya requested that her client be allowed to withdraw these appeals; however, with liberty to move the learned Family Court appropriately.

4. In the above circumstances, we dismiss these appeals as having been withdrawn; but clarify that all available remedies of the appellant, as per law, is not precluded. Since we have not considered the merits of these appeals, and have dismissed them as being withdrawn, we permit the appellant to obtain the certified copies of the judgment on making a proper application; which shall then be returned to her by the Registry, after substituting them appropriately as per the applicable the Rules.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

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

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top