Appealed against an order dismissing an application for rehearing. Held that despite no fault in the lower court order, justice requires granting a last opportunity to the absent appellant before final disposal of the appeal.
Application for rehearing and prior appeal decision set aside. Appeal reheard by District Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940
FAO.No. 85 of 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.5451/2017 IN AS 114/2012 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-V, ERNAKULAM, DATED 23-02-2018
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
M.SYED, AGED 61, S/O.LATE S.MOHAMMED, OCCUPIER OF SHOP NO.22, KTDC SHOPPING COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: K.T.D.C. HOTELS AND RESORTS LTD., (GOVT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), CORPORATE OFFICE, YATHRI NIVAS, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014,KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER AND REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE (CENTRAL), KOCHI.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, KTDC LTD. SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F. A. O. No.85 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of July, 2018
J U D G M E N T
Heard Advocate Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Advocate Sri.Thoufeek Ahamed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
F. A. O. No.85 of 2018
:- 2 :-
28.09.17 during roll call, a junior lawyer had appeared on behalf of the defendant and the matter was passed over. Thereafter, when the case was called on the second time, there was no representation for the defendant. Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, judgment was passed by the court below. It is the contention of the defendant that the counsel happened to be engaged in another court and hence could not represent the matter when it was called.
In the result, order dated 23.02.18 in I.A. 5451/17 is set aside. The judgment passed on 04.10.17 will stand set aside. The learned District Judge shall rehear the appeal and dispose of the
F. A. O. No.85 of 2018
:- 3 :-
same de novo. Parties to appear before the court below on 06.08.2018.
FAO is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a litigant appearing via junior counsel without representation warrants a rehearing of the appeal before dismissal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. SYED
K.T.D.C. HOTELS AND RESORTS LTD.
SATHISH NINAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
