Salma filed MACA 2937 of 2014 challenging the award of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 352/2012, for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 26 September 2011. The appellant contends that she was a pedestrian when struck by a motorcycle driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,38,610 with 9 percent interest and exonerated the insurer, holding the accident occurred while she was a pillion rider and the policy was Act-only. The appellant’s counsel submitted that Ext A5 wound certificate, produced by the hospital, is based on information supplied by the person who brought her, and cannot control the true facts; Ext A2, the final police report, which concluded she was walking and was hit by the motorcycle, should prevail, especially since the insurer did not adduce contra evidence. Reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Pazhaniammal (2011 (3) KLT 648) was urged to validate the police report in the absence of contrary evidence. The High Court accepted Ext A2 and rejected the exoneration, set aside the Tribunal’s finding, and re-determined the quantum by adopting a higher monthly income of Rs. 5,000, recalculating loss of earnings to Rs. 2,340 plus Rs. 21,060 deduction, resulting in total compensation of Rs. 4,45,452. The appeal is allowed; the insurer is liable to pay the enhanced amount with interest as ordered, within three months.
WP(C) Nos.2398 & 3116 of 2023 The petitions before the Kerala High Court arise from the head-load workers’ registration and employment status at the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu. The 2398/2023 petitioners claim they are attached workers (employed through specific employers) and hold Form B II registrations countersigned by the Assistant Labour Officer, yet their applications for registration under Rule 26A were rejected. They contend that the market is in a scheme-covered area, but the 1983 Scheme does not apply to attached workers. The 3116/2023 petitioner is a pool leader holding a 6A card and seeks a direction to have notices issued to him while appeals under Rule 26C are considered. The Court addresses common issues, noting that the appellate authority should hear appeals, and that the District Labour Officer (who passed the original orders) should not sit in judgment over his own orders. Relying on the Division Bench’s decision in Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad, the Court overrules earlier dicta (Rajeev and Manzoor) that unattached workers could register under Rule 26A without performing head-load work. The Judge concludes that attached workers may operate under their employers’ establishments during pendency of appeals and directs the appellate process to proceed expeditiously, thereby requiring the first respondent to forward appeals to the District Labour Officer for timely decision, while ensuring the petitioners’ continued engagement as attached workers.
This writ petition concerns the granting of a building permit for a 14-storeyed residential apartment with commercial space on ground floor on a site in Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner contends that the land is partly in a residential zone and partly in a commercial zone, and that the Interim Development Order (IDO) under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (as amended) permits residential apartments with commercial space in commercial zones, at least to a certain extent. Ext.P6, issued by the 1st respondent, rejected the application on the ground that the area is a commercial zone and the proposed residential building is not allowed. The petitioner relies on Ext.P4 (GO/MS) 180/2017 and the IDO framework along with Ext.P7 (Chapter 29) and Ext.P8 (Circular) to argue for consideration of the revised plan Ext.P9 with Ext.P10 receipt. The respondents contend that MP 1971 places the area in a commercial zone and that IDO provisions do not permit such residential construction beyond thresholds. The court quashes Ext.P6, and directs the 1st and 2nd respondents to reconsider the original application (as revised by Ext.P10 and Ext.P9) in light of Ext.P4 IDO and Ext.P8 circular, within two months. It also cites S.Subbalekshmy to uphold that IDO continues until a sanctioned Master Plan; Asset Homes and Howrah are distinguished.
MACA No. 3145/2015 (OPMV 845/2007) This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, in OP(MV) No.845/2007 arising from a motor vehicle accident on 16.10.2006 involving bus KL-02-V-8464 insured by the appellant. The claimant, Alex Thomas, a videographer and video editor, claimed a monthly income of ₹18,000 and sustained a 30% permanent disability. The Tribunal held the insurer liable and awarded ₹17,55,695 with 9% interest. The insurer challenged the quantum, arguing that the monthly income fixation at ₹11,000 (though the petition mentions ₹18,000) and the addition of 30% towards future prospects were excessive and not warranted. The High Court examined the petition, Exts. A24–A26 (evidence of regular work from studios) and concluded that ₹11,000 per month was a probable income, and that the future-prospects addition required recalibration. Relying on leading authorities (Raj Kumar, Mohan Sony, Arvind Kumar Mishra, Yadava Kumar, Syed Sadiq, and Pranay Sethi), the court held that the assessment of loss of earning capacity must consider the impact of disability on avocation and earning capacity rather than rigidly matching disability percentage. The decision modifies the quantum and awards ₹17,27,945, directing deposit within three months from the date of judgment, thereby partly allowing the appeal.”
Remesh, the appellant, sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle collision on 10.06.2011 when he was riding pillion on a motorcycle; the offending car struck him, leaving him fully incapacitated. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ernakulam awarded Rs 20,47,500 in OP(MV)548/2012, but his wife, as next friend, sought Rs 30,15,000. The appellant's counsel argues the award undercompensates, given his 100% disability and dependence for daily care. Medical records show a craniotomy, tracheostomy, ventilator support, repeated hospitalizations, and ongoing care needs; Ext.A3, Ext.A10, Ext.A11, Ext.A13 etc. The insurer counters that the Tribunal already provided a substantial sum, and that some heads (notably Loss of Earnings) should be reduced or deleted. The High Court, applying the Supreme Court decisions in Ramachandrappa and Kajal, finds that the appellant is in a vegetative stage requiring 24x7 care and must be compensated accordingly. It increases damages for Pain and Sufferings and Loss of Amenities to Rs 2,00,000 each, deletes the Loss of Earnings head, and revises Permanent Disability to Rs 16,80,000 after applying an Rs 8,000 monthly notional income and 25% future prospects. It awards Rs 16,80,000 for Bystanders Expenses for two persons at Rs 5,000 each, using a multiplier of 14, with interest at 8% and costs, directing deposit within two months. The appeal is partly allowed.
This writ petition concerns pay revision benefits for employees of Shree Madanandheswara Vinayaka Temple, Madhur, Kasaragod, which is administered by the Malabar Devaswom Board. The petitioners, eighteen temple employees, contend that although pay revisions were introduced and a Government Order (GO) fixing revised pay was issued, the corresponding monetary benefits have not been disbursed to them. The petition traces to a 2003 order in O.P. No.14574 of 1998 directing the Commissioner to sanction the revised pay, and to the 2011 GO (GO(P) No.85/2011/Fin) issued on 26 February 2011. A subset of temple employees had already received the benefits by Ext.P8, and the petition seeks parity by extending those benefits to all petitioners and by obtaining consideration of Ext.P9 representation. The matter was argued by Shashank Devan for the petitioners and Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan for the respondents. The Court notes that Ext.P8 extended benefits to similarly placed employees and finds no justification for withholding the benefits from the petitioners. The judgment disposes of the petition by directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P9 in light of GO 85/2011/Fin and Ext.P8, and to pass orders within six weeks, ensuring compliance with prior directions. The order emphasizes expeditious compliance and directs production of copies to ensure implementation.
This revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 challenges an ex parte eviction order and the subsequent appellate order in a rent control dispute. The Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff, Thrissur) had on 26 November 2018 passed an ex parte eviction against the tenant, P. N. Hareesh, in R.C.P. No. 50 of 2016 for arrears of rent, directing possession within two months, with the eviction order to be subject to Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. The tenant’s plea to set aside the ex parte order in I.A. 143 of 2019 was dismissed for delay by the Rent Control Court on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Rent Control Court proceedings. The tenant then filed R.C.A. No. 2 of 2020 before the IVth Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, seeking condonation of a delay of about 300 days; that application was rejected on 04.03.2021. The revision came up for admission and interim stay on 22.07.2021, and the High Court has now allowed the Revision after a detailed consideration of Limitation Act applicability and the status of Rent Control Courts as 'courts' for purposes of condonation. The judgment references Rathheesh (overruled by Hamsa K.K.), Mukri Gopalan, Abdul Rehiman, Katiji, Esha Bhattacharjee, and other authorities to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies and that the ex parte eviction order and the Appellate Authority’s decision are illegal, directing restoration of R.C.P. 50/2016 for expeditious disposal.
Louis, an elderly accused in S.C. No. 160/2015, charged under IPC 376(2)(i) and PoCSO Act 6 r/w 5(m), challenged a Fast Track Special Judge, Thrissur order that attempted to subject him to Narco Analysis under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 293 CrPC. The petition, CRL.M.C. 4007/2021, contends that Narco Analysis would buttress his defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and that the PoCSO Act's presumptions (Sections 29 and 30) shift the burden of proof in a way that mandates resort to such tests for innocence or to offset the evidentiary burden. The State and the Special Prosecutor oppose, arguing the tests are dangerous, unreliable, and violative of constitutional protections. The High Court conducts a thorough review of law on Narco Analysis, including the requirement that entering defence under Section 233 CrPC should be guided by evidence rules, definitions of 'evidence' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, and controlling precedents. It cites the landmark Selvi v. Karnataka case to hold that forced narco analysis and other techniques violate Article 21 and are not to be ordered for investigation. It rejects the proffered justifications based on presumptions and parity of procedure, noting that even voluntary consent cannot render such tests admissible or reliable. It concludes that the Narco Analysis request cannot be entertained and the petition is devoid of merit, dismissing CRL.M.C. 4007/2021.
This Writ Petition concerns whether a public sector nationalised bank can withhold the proceeds of a fixed deposit when the deposit was opened in the name of a charitable trust for a provisional affiliation commitment and was funded from the account of a third party. The petitioner, Sree Sankara National Institute of Educational Trust, had furnished a Rs.10 lakh fixed deposit on 20.09.2006, endorsed in favour of the University of Kerala, as a financial guarantee for college affiliation. The FD was opened on instructions by the firm Compu-Needs Communications, represented by the 5th respondent, debiting the 5th respondent’s account; the funds were connected to a transaction with the 4th respondent University and the deposit eventually matured. In 2019, the Registrar of the University of Kerala and the Syndicate of the University of Health Sciences/affiliated bodies sought to release the FD, while the petitioner owed dues to the University. The Banking Ombudsman (3rd respondent) held that the FD was opened on instructions from the 5th respondent and that the interest had accrued to the 5th respondent, with the Ombudsman order directing the deposit to be released only upon third-party consent. The petitioner submits that there is a debtor–creditor contract between the bank and the depositor, and third-party consent cannot be a condition for repayment. The court held that the bank owes a duty to the deposit holder upon maturity and allowed the petition, directing payment of the maturity value with interest within two weeks, while reserving the 5th respondent’s rights against the petitioner and the bank’s right to recover amounts paid to the 5th respondent. The Ombudsman order was set aside.
Parvathy S. J., the petitioner in WP(C) 18320/2021 before the Kerala High Court, seeks correction/change of the date of birth recorded in the CBSE school records and CBSE certificates. She asserts her true DOB is 05.10.1992, but the public certificate on record shows 04.04.1994, a discrepancy she supports with Ext.P5, the Kollam Corporation birth certificate. The petitioner completed 10th standard in 2009 and explains the correction was not pursued earlier; the need to correct became urgent after marriage when applying for a spouse visa. She relies on Jigya Yadav v. CBSE (SC), which categorises corrections and changes and holds that corrections to align CBSE certificates with public documents can be entertained under reasonable conditions. The division of the two situations frames the court’s approach: a correction (already aligned with school records) or a change (where the board’s entries conflict with public documents). The court notes delay but finds the request falls within the change category and that public-document presumptions cannot be ignored; it outlines the Apex Court-guided conditions, including an affidavit of indemnity, payment of fees, possible public notice, surrender of the original certificate, and a prospective certificate with disclaimer if needed. The court directs that on filing an application by the petitioner, the sixth respondent shall consider the request in light of Jigya Yadav, and disposes of the petition accordingly. A clerical post-judgment correction changes 'second' to 'fifth' in a note.
This is a consolidated Kerala High Court writ petition matter (WP(C) Nos. 637/2013 and connected cases) decided by Justice Devan Ramachandran on 11 August 2021. The petitions—including Remya R. (637/2013), Beegum A. Mufeeda (2888/2013), Sunil Kumar N. (4531/2013), and Jayasree T.G. (4540/2013)—challenge impugned orders affecting CRC/BRC personnel serving under SSA-BRC in Pathanamthitta/Changanassery. The court notes that the issues raised have already been covered in the petitioners’ favor by a prior Kerala High Court decision in Kishore V.G. v. State of Kerala and Others (2019 (4) KLT 153). Relying on that precedent, the court allows the writ petitions, quashes the impugned orders, and declares that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioners on the basis of those orders in the future. The judgment further states that retrenchment issues involving the petitioners, if any, may be pursued by them in the future, as advised. Exhibits attached before the court show orders, revision petitions, notices, and appointment details related to the petitioners. The decision reinforces the protections available to employees in SSA-BRC roles when challenged against retrenchment or recovery actions, while anchoring the outcome to a favorable precedent.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1538 OF 2011 The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, hears Crl.R.P. No.1538 of 2011, a criminal revision petition filed by B. Madhu challenging concurrent judgments convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and sentencing him. The case arises from a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000 issued in discharge of a purported legally enforceable debt, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, with the complainant alleging non-payment despite demand. The Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvananthapuram) convicted Madhu and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, plus a fine of Rs. 3,00,000, with default terms. The Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram) confirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence and modified the fine to Rs. 3,05,000, with a six-month default term. Madhu contends that there was no legally enforceable debt and that the prosecution relied on a stolen or misused cheque, arguing his denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Court discusses statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act and the reverse-onus principle, citing Rangappa, Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel, Bir Singh, Kalamani Tex, and others to reaffirm the prosecution’s burden and the accused’s duty to rebut the presumption. The High Court ultimately dismisses the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence, and directs Madhu to surrender by 18.12.2023 with the option of payment/compensation as prescribed.
Thomas Mathew C., a junior clerk employed by Payyavoor Service Sahakarana Bank Ltd., Kannur, faced a memo of charges for alleged dereliction of duty and misappropriation of funds, and his dismissal was imposed after a disciplinary enquiry. Ext.P2, the charge memo, led to Ext.P3 explanation, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Based on the enquiry report, a show-cause notice was issued on 26.12.2003, culminating in Ext.P4 that dismissed the petitioner with effect from 26.09.2003. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action, arguing that under Rule 182(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules) the committee, not the President of the Bank, is the appointing authority and that Ext.P2 shows the President, not the committee, issued the memo. He also contended that Rule 198(3) vests the power to impose dismissal in the President, making the sub-committee’s punishment illegal. He relied on Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese (2020 (4) KLT 129) to claim sub-committee incompetence to issue the charge memo. The Joint Registrar’s order dismissing the rescission petition and the Labour Court’s reference ID No.40/2006 were considered, with the Labour Court ultimately holding the dismissal justifiable after allowing fresh evidence for the Bank. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, noting no interference with the Labour Court’s findings and rejecting the petition’s grounds as meritless.
This High Court of Kerala, in OP(RC) No.19 of 2023, concerns a dispute between a landlord (Venugopal) and a tenant (Ancy Anna Isaac) arising from eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court, Mavelikara, had passed a common order dated 06.01.2023 allowing both I.A.No.14 of 2022 (landlord’s request for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to determine the availability of vacant shop rooms in the local area) and I.A.No.16 of 2022 (tenant’s request for a Commissioner to ascertain vacant rooms and, more importantly, to report whether owners are willing to lease to the tenant for his pesticide business). However, the Court rejected the tenant’s request for an oral inquiry by the Commissioner. The tenant challenged Ext.P8 before this Court under Article 227. The High Court held that appointing a common Commissioner was not illegal and that the Commission should report only on the availability of vacant shop rooms; inquiries into ownership or landlord’s assets, or into owner willingness to lease, were extraneous to Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. The court directed the Rent Control Court to obtain the Commission Report within three weeks and to dispose of the RCP by 15.03.2023, dismissing the OP(RC) 19 of 2023 in limine.
CRP(WAKF) Nos.11 & 12 OF 2019 These revision petitions challenge the Wakf Tribunal’s 06.10.2018 judgment in O.S. (Wakf) No.28 of 2013, which decreed a prohibitory injunction restraining respondents 2–18 from taking any policy decisions of Kollam Polayathodu Pareediya Masjid Jama-ath and rejected the counter-claim seeking to enforce bye-laws of 2014. The petitions, filed by six counter-claim plaintiffs (revision petitioners), attacked the bye-laws and sought declarations and injunctive relief restraining the respondents from interfering in day‑to‑day administration and from convening meetings without informing the muthavalli and his nominees. The Wakf Tribunal framed issues regarding entitlement to a permanent injunction and declarations about the legality of elections held on 29.5.2011, and about the muthavalli’s status and the validity of bye-laws, including those registered as 125/2014. Evidence was adduced; the judgment noted that the Muthavalli could not act contrary to the Wakf deed by appointing another Muthavalli and raised locus standi concerns. Subsequently, supervening events—appointment of an administrator by the Wakf Board and the death of a plaintiff—made a merits‑based review impractical. The Court directed consideration of whether to apply the 2010 or 2014 bye-laws and to hold elections in compliance with law, leaving the decision to the Wakf Board. The CRPs are disposed of with these directions.
This Kerala High Court MACA No. 2657 of 2014 challenges the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kozhikode’s 28.04.2014 award in OP(MV) No.849/2013 arising from a motor accident on 22.01.2011 at Kozhikode, in which Ayisha died after being knocked down by a motorcycle KL-10Z 4745. The appellant, as Ayisha’s legal representative, sought higher compensation than the Tribunal awarded ( Rs.75,000) and challenged the Tribunal’s findings and calculations. Respondents 1 and 2 contended the accident occurred due to Ayisha’s own negligence, disputed the liability of the rider, and questioned the policy’s indemnity. Respondent 3, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., argued policy conditions and driving license issues. The High Court, while affirming the rider’s negligence and the insurer’s liability, re-evaluated quantum. It fixed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs.6,000 (as a housewife) and held that future prospects were not applicable given her age (80 years). The Court maintained the Tribunal’s multiplier of 5 and rejected a 1/2 deduction for personal expenses, applying a 1/3 deduction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines, it awarded additional amounts for loss of estate (Rs.16,500), funeral expenses (Rs.16,500 total after adding Rs.6,500), and loss of consortium (Rs.44,000), plus Rs.6,500 as additional funeral-related compensation. The resulting total enhanced compensation is Rs.2,44,000 with 7.5% interest from the date of filing till realisation, subject to recovery from other respondents as applicable. The MACA is allowed accordingly and directed payment within two months with possible adjustments and recoveries as stated.
BAIL APPL. NO. 212 OF 2023 This bail application concerns Sajeev Raj (second accused) in Crime No.2158/2020 at Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking regular bail. The prosecution alleges that 54.548 kilograms of ganja were seized in 26 packets from the residence of the first accused and that accused Nos. 1 to 4 jointly transported and possessed the contraband for sale. The petitioner was arrested on 09.03.2021. The case involves offences under NDPS Act, section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with section 29, due to involvement with commercial quantity contraband. Since commercial quantity is involved, Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, with the twin conditions: (i) the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail; and (ii) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court relies on Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari (2007) for the meaning of “reasonable grounds,” concluding it must be more than prima facie grounds. It cites multiple precedents to reinforce the settled law that the bail decision under Section 37 is not an acquittal and that the two ingredients must be satisfied conjunctively. After evaluating the materials and arguments, the court finds no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is innocent or unlikely to reoffend, and hence denies bail. The petition stands dismissed.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 3817 of 2017) from the Kerala High Court. The petitioners—Mohammed Shah and his siblings—challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur’s award of Rs. 15,93,000 as compensation for the fatal 2009 accident in which the deceased, Ijas Muhammed Shah, died after being struck by a mini lorry driven by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent. The tribunal held the 2nd respondent negligent and directed the insurer to satisfy the award. The deceased was 23 years old and an 8th semester mechanical engineering student; petitioners claimed a monthly income of Rs. 12,000. The tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs. 8,000 and added 50% towards future prospects. The court held that the income should be Rs. 12,000 and future prospects should be 40% (per Pranay Sethi), giving a notional monthly figure of Rs. 16,800. With a multiplier of 18 and a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses, dependency loss computes to Rs. 18,14,400. An amount of Rs. 12,96,000 was already awarded under this head, resulting in an enhanced sum of Rs. 5,18,400. The court held that pain and suffering should be excluded (per Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kahlon) and that loss of consortium should be Rs. 40,000 to each parent (Rs. 80,000 total). Loss of love and affection was not payable where loss of consortium applied. Loss of estate addition of Rs. 5,000 and funeral expense adjustment (Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 25,000) were made, yielding an enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,78,400. The insurer must deposit this amount with 9% interest from the petition date to payment, within two months. The appeal is disposed of as above.
MACA Nos.3521 & 3545 of 2015 These two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) No.1207/2013. On 07.10.2012, at 9:45 hours, a motorcycle KL-04 AB-6960, in which the claimant (injured) was a pillion rider, allegedly met with an accident resulting in serious injuries. The insurer challenges the accident, arguing that the claimant was the rider and that the accident occurred due to his own negligence, so he was not entitled to compensation. The insurer adduced little evidence; the tribunal’s quantum was Rs. 1,26,900 notwithstanding the claimant’s assertion of higher income and disability. The claimant sought enhancement, while the insurer attacked the accident itself. The court upholds that charge sheets generated after investigation can establish negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless collusion is shown; it rejects the insurer’s assertion of a non-genuine accident due to lack of evidence of collusion (citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Pazhaniammal for the collusion principle). Noting the claimant’s hospitalization for 14 days and 8% disability, the court re-evaluates notional income (Rs. 8,500/month per Ramchandrappa) with a 14-year multiplier, increasing several heads of compensation (loss of earnings, permanent disability, extra nourishment, bystander expenses, loss of amenities). The result is enhanced compensation for MACA 3545, with detailed head-wise enhancement, and dismissal of MACA 3521. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced sum with interest; no costs order.
The Kerala High Court, in RFA No. 435 of 2007, heard on 12 December 2023 before Justice Sathish Ninan, concerns an appeal against an order/judgment in OS 460/2004 of the Sub Judge, Kozhikode. The suit sought a declaration that certain registered documents are null and void and to protect the plaintiffs’ title and possession, with a prohibitory injunction and claim for damages. The plaint-suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favor of the plaintiffs; the 9th defendant contested, but did not participate in the trial. The 9th defendant’s absence led the court to rely on the plaintiff’s evidence (PW1) with Exts. A1–A39 and the commissioner’s report (C1, C1(a)). The trial court’s judgment was thus ex parte in effect against the 9th defendant, and the appellate court acknowledges the lack of contest. The High Court notes a change of counsel for the 9th defendant prior to trial and grants leeway to allow the contentions raised in the written statement to be thrashed out, while recognizing the 9th defendant has since passed away and his heirs are impleaded as additional appellants. The court also records delays due to the death of parties and service issues, and awards costs to counsel. Ultimately, the appeal is allowed, the decree and judgment are set aside, and the suit is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal, with directions on costs and timelines.
