Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
Sushama M. Nair – Appellant
Versus
Sarika N. Nair – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2247 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R. Arun Krishnan, Deepa K. Radhakrishnan, Jissmon A Kuriakose, Sanal C.S, Sidtharthan M.T.
For the Respondents: Abraham Samson, Lovely Samson
The High Court will not intervene in the merits of a trial court suit via writ jurisdiction when multiple interlocutory applications are pending, instead directing the trial court to resolve those applications within a specified timeframe to ensure judicial propriety.
Headnote:The case involves a dispute regarding the withdrawal of a suit based on an alleged compromise agreement. The petitioner, as an additional defendant, sought to transpose herself as the plaintiff, claiming the compromise was disputed and that the withdrawal process was improper. The court refused to adjudicate the merits at the appellate stage while interlocutory applications remained pending before the trial court. The central issue pertains to whether the High Court should intervene in trial court proceedings when multiple interlocutory applications are pending. The court observed that it is not proper to pass orders on merits when the matter is sub-judice before the trial court, emphasizing that the lower court must first resolve the outstanding interlocutory applications to ensure procedural fairness and proper adjudication of the underlying dispute. The court disposed of the original petition with a directive to the trial court to consider and pass orders on all pending interlocutory applications within six weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court directs trial courts to expedite the disposal of pending interlocutory applications to maintain judicial efficiency rather than intervening in pending suits. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court raising a grievance that based on a compromise entered into, excluding for, the suit is sought to be withdrawn. There is a dispute as to whether a settlement has in fact taken place. In the above circumstances, the petitioner had filed an application as I.A.No.19 of 2025 seeking to transpose herself as the plaintiff in the suit. She seeks consideration of the application on merits.
2. The counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there are other applications also pending, including a petition seeking return of the court fee.
Since the matters are pending before the trial court it is not proper for this Court to pass any orders on merits. The original petition is hence disposed of directing the Sub Court, Chengannur to consider and pass orders on all the interlocutory applications pending in O.S.No.26/2023, including I.A.No.19 of 2025, at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
