Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
Sasidharan – Appellant
Versus
Mukundan – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 393 OF 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: George Varghese, A.R.Dileep, P.J.Joe Paul, Manu Srinath
For the Respondents: P.B.Subramanyan, Sabu George, B.Anusree, Manu Vyasan Peter, Meera P., Aiswarya Mohan, Chitra Johnson

Procedural delay should not be the sole ground for rejecting an application when compelling circumstances, such as serious medical illness, exist, and the interest of justice dictates a decision on the merits.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order of the trial court that refused to entertain applications for setting aside a commission report, citing delay. The court examined the medical grounds substantiated by the petitioner and observed that the case had been stayed for six years. It was held that procedural delays should not preclude a substantive hearing in the interest of justice. Key issues included whether the trial court was justified in dismissing applications solely on the ground of delay and if the petitioner's medical condition warranted a reconsideration. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that the interest of justice is paramount, and procedural rules regarding delay should be applied flexibly to ensure a fair trial when circumstances, such as serious health issues, are present. The trial court's impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the applications on their merits.

JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed challenging an order rejecting the prayer to set aside a commission report, on the ground of delay. The case has been pending before this Court for the past six years and no useful purpose will be served by retaining this original petition. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was suffering from serious ailments, which caused the delay in filing applications. The only reason in the impugned order is that the petition cannot be considered at this stage and there is delay. Since the proceedings have been stayed by this Court for the past six years, I am of the opinion that interest of justice requires a proper hearing of the applications.

In the above circumstances, Exts.P10, P11 & P12 are set aside. The Munsiff Court, Alathur is directed to reconsider I.A.Nos.183, 184 and 185 of 2020 on merits and pass necessary orders. The delay in approaching the Court shall not be a reason for refusing to consider the applications on merits.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMT.R. Ravi, JSasidharan – AppellantVersusMukundan – RespondentOP(C) NO. 393 OF 2020

Procedural delay should not be the sole ground for rejecting an application when compelling circumstances, such as serious medical illness, exist, and the interest of justice dictates a decision on the merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
Sasidharan – Appellant
Versus
Mukundan – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 393 OF 2020