Kerala High Court
Philomina Yohannan vs Aswathy on 17 October, 2025
O.P.(C) No. 1126 of 2024
1
2025:KER:77714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 1126 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2022 IN RP NO.2 OF 2022
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
PHILOMINA YOHANNAN
AGED 55 YEARS, W/O YOHANNAN GEORGE,
LIJO BHAVAN, KADIKA MURI, ENATHU VILLAGE,
ENATHU.P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 691 530.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
SRI.NIKHIL.A.AZEEZ
KUM.VYKHARI.K.U
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 ASWATHY
AGED 52 YEARS, W/O SUBHASH, ANDAHA BHAVAN,
KIZHAKKE THERUVU.P.O., IRINGOOR MURI,
MELILA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691 531.
2 AMMU
AGED 22 YEARS, D/O SUBHASH, ANDAHA BHAVAN,
KIZHAKKE THERUVU.P.O., IRINGOOR MURI,
MELILA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691 531.
3 ANANDU
AGED 18 YEARS, S/O SUBHASH, ANDAHA BHAVAN,
KIZHAKKE THERUVU.P.O., IRINGOOR MURI,
MELILA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691 531.
O.P.(C) No. 1126 of 2024
2
2025:KER:77714
BY ADV
SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No. 1126 of 2024
3
2025:KER:77714
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025)
This Original Petition is filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside Ext.P9 order dated
15.11.2022 in Review Petition No.02/2022 in O.S.No.14/2017
passed by the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed
a suit for realization of money, previously the petitioner filed a
suit as indigent person. But, the trial court after the inquiry
rejected the IA and directed the petitioner to pay the balance
court fee and when the matter is came before the court, the
petitioner/plaintiff was absent. The trial court rejected the
plaint on 14.06.2019 for non payment of court fee.
Subsequently, the petitioner able to accumulate the court fee
and filed a review petition before the same Court on
31.03.2022 and notice was ordered to the respondents to be
2025:KER:77714
appeared on 20.06.2022. Thereafter, the respondents
appeared and obtained adjournment for the purpose of filing
objection to the review petition and the matter was taken up
on 20.06.2022. The same was adjourned on the request of
the respondents to 08.07.2022. Then, on 08.07.2022, once
again the respondents obtained time for filing counter, it was
adjourned to 23.08.2022 and on 23.08.2022 there was no
sitting and the matter was posted to 17.10.2022. On the said
day, the petitioner was absent, whereas the respondents
prayed time to file counter. But, the trial court dismissed the
review petition without giving opportunity to the petitioner
being heard. Therefore, the petitioner approached this court.
4. The petitioner counsel argued the matter that no
opportunity given to the petitioner being heard etc. The
respondents counsel submits that they already filed objection.
However, the petitioner was absent not shown any bonafide
reason for their absent. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
2025:KER:77714
5. Considering the arguments of both sides and
perusal of the order under challenge which reveals that the
petitioner was absent and respondent counsel present and the
Court Suo motu passed the order dismissing the review
petition. The Ext.P8 proceedings dated 15.11.22 reveals that
the respondents counsel prayed that the respondents counsel
sought some more time to file counter to the review petition
of the petitioner. Such being the case the trial court ought not
to have rejected the prayer of the respondent for filing the
counter or could have given some time to file the counter.
But the petitioner was absent. Without giving any
opportunity to the petitioner being heard, the trial court ought
not to have rejected the application when the review petition
was filed with a prayer for recalling the order for payment of
court fee.
6. Such being the case, I am of the view that the trial
court ought to have given opportunity being heard and could
have disposed the review petition filed by the petitioner.
2025:KER:77714
Therefore, the order under challenge deserved to be set
aside.
7. Accordingly, this original petition is allowed.
i. The order dated 15.11.2022 passed in
Review Petition No.2/2022 in O.S.No.14/17
passed by the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta is
hereby set aside.
ii. The RP No.2/22 is remitted back for fresh
consideration by giving opportunity to both
parties and decide the matter within 3
months from the date of receipt of copy of
the judgment.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN
JUDGE
S.M.K.
2025:KER:77714
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1126/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 14 OF
2017 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-6-2019
OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION
NO. 2 OF 2022 DATED 29-3-2022 FILED
BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31-
3-2022 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20-
6-2022 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8-7-
2022 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23-
8-2022 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15-
11-2022 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P9 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-
11-2022 IN RP NO. 2 OF 2022 IN OS NO.
14 OF 2017 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
