Kerala High Court
George Joseph vs Morris Hospitality Services (Pvt) Ltd on 25 September, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:71954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
FAO NO. 112 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2025 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2024 IN
OS NO.133 OF 2007 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
GEORGE JOSEPH
AGED 75 YEARS, S/O GEORGE KANNITTAYIL CHURCH ROAD,
SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, SAKTHIKULANGARA PO,
KOLLAM (DIST), PIN - 691582
BY ADV SRI.M.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 & 7
TO 12:
1 MORRIS HOSPITALITY SERVICES (PVT) LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. SEBASTIAN GEORGE MORRIS S/O GEORGE MORRIS,
AGED 53, RESIDING AT SUISUMMIT, FLAT NO.102A, ERG
ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAMED GEORGE JOHN MORRIS, AGED
62 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNITTAYIL, PUTHENTHOPPU,
KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, TRIVANDRUM,
NOW WORKING AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, EURO MARINE
PRODUCTS (PVT) LTD., PUTHEN THOPPU, ST. XAVIERS
2025:KER:71954
F.A.O. No.112 of 2025
-: 2 :-
COLLAGE PO, TRIVANDRUM (DIST),, PIN - 695586
2 SEBASTIAN GEORGE MORRIS
AGED 53 YEARS
28 KINGS ROAD, ST.ALBANS, IN THE STATE OF
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, FROM SUISUMMIT, FLAT NO.
102A,ERG ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682081
3 SHOLA SEBASTIAN
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O SEBASTIAN.G 28 KINGS ROAD ST.ALBANS, IN THE
STATE OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, FROM SUISUMMIT,
FLAT NO. 102A, ERG ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682081
4 THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER OVERSEASE
BUSINESS CENTRE BRANCH, WILLINGDON ISLAND,
COCHIN, PIN - 682003
5 M/S CLIFFTOP BEACH RESORT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR. SIBY XAVIER AND
MR.LOUIS THOMAS CHANGANACHERRY PO, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686101
6 SIBY XAVIER
AGED 60 YEARS
PARTNER, M/S CLIFFTOP BEACH RESORT,
CHANGANACHERRY RESIDING AT PARAKKA HOUSE, ALUVA
PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101
7 FIRST PERFORMANCE TOURISM AND MARKETING (PVT) LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. ASHIS
SANKAR. 6/12, PRIMROSE ROAD, GURUPPA AVENUE,
BANGLORE, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560025
8 ANNU LOUIS
W/O. THE LATE LOUIS THOMAS KUTTAMPEROOR,
CKAKKALACKAL, CHANGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686101
2025:KER:71954
F.A.O. No.112 of 2025
-: 3 :-
9 THOMAS LOUIS
S/O. LATE LOUIS THOMAS KUTTAMPEROOR,
CKAKKALACKAL, CHANGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN -
686101
0 JOSEPH LOUIS
S/O.LATE LOUIS THOMAS KUTTAMPEROOR, CKAKKALACKAL,
CHANGANSSERY.-KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN - 686101
11 ABRAHAM L.K
S/O. LATE LOUIS THOMAS KUTTAMPEROOR,
CKAKKALACKAL, CHANGANSSERY, KOTTAYAM DIST, PIN -
686101
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71954
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
F.A.O. No.112 of 2025
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The application seeking restoration of a suit dismissed
for default, was dismissed by the trial court. The
plaintiff-applicant is in appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant.
3. The suit of the year 2007 was listed for trial on
09.07.2015. On that day, on the application of the
plaintiff, the suit was removed from the list.
4. Thereafter, the suit was listed for trial to
10.01.2018. On that day, since the plaintiff failed to
appear, the suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, on
the application of the plaintiff as I.A.No.256 of 2018, the
suit was restored to file as per order dated 02.07.2020.
5. The suit was then listed for trial to 01.07.2021.
2025:KER:71954
The plaintiff filed an application to remove the case from
the list, which was granted. 6. Thereafter, the suit was
again listed for trial to 14.09.2021. Again, on the request
of the plaintiff, the suit was removed from the list.
6. The suit was then listed for trial to 15.11.2021.
Again, the plaintiff sought for removing the suit from the
list. The request was granted and the suit was removed from
the list.
7. Thereafter, the suit was listed for trial to
07.11.2023. On that date, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 of
2023, seeking time. The application was allowed and the
trial was adjourned to 21.11.2023.
8. On 21.11.2023, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.4 of
2023, seeking for adjournment on the ground that the
plaintiff is admitted the hospital and was in the Intensive
Care Unit. The court directed production of medical records
and adjourned the matter to 24.11.2024. On that date, the
medical certificate produced by the plaintiff revealed that
the submission made on 21.11.2023 that the plaintiff was
2025:KER:71954
admitted in the hospital and was in the Intensive Care Unit
was an incorrect statement. The certificate was only to the
effect that he was admitted in the hospital for observation
for a single day. The court dismissed the application and
consequently the suit.
9. Though the plaintiff sought for restoration of the
suit, the trial court, as per the impugned order dismissed
the application. While dismissing the application for
restoration, the court noticed the above conduct of the
plaintiff in protracting the suit of the year 2007 on one
reason or the other.
10. The trial court has also observed that the suit is
one for declaring a sale deed executed by him to the 1 st
defendant company in the year 2003 as a sham document. The
plaintiff is a Director of the company. The 1 st defendant
hypothecated the property to the 4 th defendant, Central Bank
of India. The plaintiff was a guarantor to that loan
transaction. The court also noticed that the plaintiff has
not sought cancellation of the document and that even such a
2025:KER:71954
prayer would be barred by limitation. We find that the trial
court has taken note of the above only to reinforce that the
attempt of the plaintiff was only to protract the suit.
11. We are in agreement with the trial court in having
refused to restore the suit. We are conscious that the
endeavour of the court is to be to decide a lis on merits
rather than a disposal on default. However, on the peculiar
facts as noticed above, when it is apparent that the attempt
of the plaintiff was only to protract the proceedings, any
further indulgence shown to him would result in misplaced
sympathy and lenience, causing injustice to the opposite
party.
We do not find any reason to issue notice to the
respondent. The FAO is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
