Herrose Km vs Manager
2026 Latest Caselaw 2211 Ker

Kerala High Court

Herrose Km vs Manager on 25 March, 2026

Author: Anil K. Narendran

Bench: Anil K. Narendran

W.A.No.619 of 2026                  1               2026:KER:25594

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

                                      &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

    WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                            WA NO.619 OF 2026

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2026 IN WP(C) NO.5856 OF 2026 OF

                           HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

              HERROSE K.M.
              AGED 65 YEARS
              KOTTAMALIL, SANTHAMADHAVAM, PAREKKATTIL LANE,
              ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA, PIN - 683101

              BY HERROSE K.M. (PARTY-IN-PERSON)


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

              MANAGER
              SOUTH INDIAN BANK, ALUVA BRANCH,
              PRIYADARSHINI ROAD ALUVA EMAIL:
              [email protected], PIN - 683101

              SRI.SUNIL SHANKER, SC
       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2026,
THE COURT ON 25.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.619 of 2026                   2                   2026:KER:25594

                               JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026, invoking the writ

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking the following reliefs;

"(1) direct all banks to address summonses seeking litigant's financial data with due diligence, seeking clarification on ambiguity, honouring privacy, relevant laws and judicial precedents;

(2) direct all registry staff of all courts in High Court's territorial jurisdiction to strictly follow verification protocols and ensure that non-vakalath counsel do not "act or plead" in Court, honouring Order III Rule 4 of CPC;

(3) direct the respondent-bank to pay compensation to the petitioner, if this Hon'ble Court finds it just and reasonable, any amount at Court's discretion, for the aforementioned constitutional violations of privacy breach and resulting mental agony, resulting physical agony and professional damage.

(4) allow such other reliefs, prayed later, as the case progresses."

2. The Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva Branch

was arrayed as the sole respondent in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026.

The appellant-petitioner is arrayed as the respondent in O.P.No.

344 of 2023 filed by his wife Padma G., before the Family Court,

Aluva. The said original petition along with connected matters, i.e., W.A.No.619 of 2026 3 2026:KER:25594

O.P.Nos.356 and 359 of 2023 and M.C.No.69 of 2023, are now

pending before the Family Court, Aluva, for joint trial. The

grievance of the appellant-petitioner is that in the matrimonial

case pending before the Family Court, Aluva, his wife obtained a

summons from the said court to the respondent herein, who is the

Manager of South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva to provide his account

details. According to the petitioner, the Bank provided his account

details in violation of his right to privacy. Though account details

sought for were for a period of three years, the Bank furnished

account statement for a period of 11 years to the Family Court.

Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record

Ext.P1 list of witnesses filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.344 of

2023, with the endorsements made by the Family Court; Exts.P2

and P3 summons issued by the Family Court in O.P.No.344 of

2023; Ext.P4 deposition of the Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd.,

Aluva, who was examined as PW7 in O.P.No.344 of 2023; Ext.P5

reply dated 03.10.2025 obtained by the petitioner from the Public

Information Officer, Family Court, Aluva, under the provisions of

the Right to Information Act, 2005, based on his application dated

11.09.2025; Ext.P6 certified copy of B Diary proceedings in

O.P.No.344 of 2023; Ext.P7 reply dated 13.05.2025 of the Branch W.A.No.619 of 2026 4 2026:KER:25594

Operations Manager of South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva Branch, to

the request dated 24.04.2025 made by the petitioner under the

provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005; Ext.P8 reply

dated 27.11.2025 received from the Public Information Officer of

this Court to the request dated 28.10.2025 made by the

petitioner; and Ext.P9 medical certificate dated 16.12.2021 issued

to the petitioner.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by

the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the Bank

provided the account details, which were required by the Family

Court in the summons. If the petitioner has any complaint

regarding the issuance of summons, he should have agitated the

same before the Family Court itself. The petitioner has filed a

complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Ernakulam, alleging deficiency in service and claiming

compensation from the Bank. After referring to Ext.P3 summons,

it was pointed out that the account details of the petitioner from

the year 2015 onwards were sought by the Family Court.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, the learned

Single Judge by the judgment dated 16.02.2026 dismissed

W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026. Paragraph 4 of that judgment reads W.A.No.619 of 2026 5 2026:KER:25594

thus;

"4. It is seen from the records as well as the averments in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner's grievance is regarding the furnishing of his account details by the Bank before the Family Court pursuant to the summons issued by the Family Court. In such case, it was for the Petitioner to approach either the Family Court or the Appellate Court challenging the issuance of the summons. When the Court summons details from the Bank, the Bank is bound to provide the same. The Bank cannot refuse to provide the account details on the ground that it would violate the right to privacy of the Petitioner. Even though the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that a case is filed before the Consumer Commission, the same is not disclosed in the Writ Petition. Prayer No.3 relates to the claim of compensation which the Petitioner has already claimed before the Consumer Commission. This Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot consider the prayers of the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed."

5. Challenging the judgment dated 16.02.2026 of the

learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026, the appellant-

petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the

provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

6. The appellant, who appeared in person, contended that

the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without

properly appreciating the legal and factual contentions raised by W.A.No.619 of 2026 6 2026:KER:25594

the appellant-petitioner and therefore, the impugned judgment

dated 16.02.2026 of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set

aside in this writ appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel

for the respondent-respondent contended that valid reasons have

been stated by the learned Single Judge, in the judgment dated

16.02.2026, to dismiss W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026. The reasoning of

the learned Single Judge, which is neither perverse nor patently

illegal, warrants no interference in this intra-court appeal.

7. As already noticed hereinbefore, the second relief

sought for in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026 is an order directing all

registry staff of all courts in the High Courts territorial jurisdiction

to strictly follow verification protocols and ensure that non-

vakalath counsel do not act or plead in court, honouring Order III

Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The statement of facts

and grounds in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026 do not contain any

pleadings and grounds in support of the aforesaid relief sought for,

invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

8. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC

534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly

a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party W.A.No.619 of 2026 7 2026:KER:25594

raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove

such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition

and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts

are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not

annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case

may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held

further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the

Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter

affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement,

the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ

petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the

evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to

it.

9. In M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat

[(1998) 4 SCC 387] the Apex Court was dealing with a case

arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land

for M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that, in the absence

of any allegation that Rule 3 the Land Acquisition (Companies)

Rules, 1963 had not been complied and there being no particulars

in respect of non compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as W.A.No.619 of 2026 8 2026:KER:25594

to how the High Court could have reached the finding that

statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled

before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration

under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not

give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3

and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record of the case.

Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was "not

possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there

was compliance with Rules 3 and 4". The Apex Court held that, it

is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has

not been complied. It is a requirement of good pleading to give

details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged that there is non

compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can

be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particulars.

No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is

lacking. Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the

department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea

has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily

department may have to place its full cards before the court. On

the facts of the case, the Apex Court found that the State has

more than justified its stand that there has been compliance not W.A.No.619 of 2026 9 2026:KER:25594

only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well, though there was no

challenge to Rule 3 and the averments regarding non compliance

with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever.

High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition

proceedings.

10. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya

Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex

Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has

to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to

substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the

pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to

entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to

enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial.

Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the

controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the

question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate

evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a

rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted.

Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds

outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of

pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial W.A.No.619 of 2026 10 2026:KER:25594

with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being

expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or

legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the

parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite

counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of

reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be

violative of the principles of natural justice.

11. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions

referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that in the absence of

proper pleadings in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026, in support of the

second relief, the appellant-petitioner is not legally entitled for

consideration of such a relief by this Court in exercise of the writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. The first relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026 is

an order directing all banks to address summonses seeking

litigant's financial data with due diligence, seeking clarification on

ambiguity, honouring privacy, relevant laws and judicial

precedents. The sole respondent in this writ petition is the

Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Aluva Branch.

13. Rule 148 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971

deals with addition of parties. As per Rule 148, all persons directly W.A.No.619 of 2026 11 2026:KER:25594

affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons

are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of

the court on application made of the purpose, be impleaded on

behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of

the original petition shall, on admission, be given to all such

persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as

the Court in each case may direct. As per the first proviso to Rule

148, where the State Government is a party, the Secretary to the

Government Department concerned shall be arrayed as party

representing the Government. As per the second proviso to Rule

148, if the subject-matter of the petition relates to two or more

Government Departments or, if the petition is of such a nature,

the disposal of which warrants information from two or more

Government Departments, the Chief Secretary to Government and

the Secretaries to those Government and the Secretaries to those

Government Departments shall be made as party representing the

Government.

14. In the absence of proper parties in the party array, the

appellant-petitioner is not legally entitled for consideration of the

first relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026, in exercise of the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the W.A.No.619 of 2026 12 2026:KER:25594

Constitution of India.

15. The third relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026 is

an order directing the respondent-bank [Sic:respondent] to pay

compensation to the petitioner, if this Hon'ble Court finds it just

and reasonable, any amount at Court's discretion, for the

aforementioned constitutional violations of privacy breach and

resulting mental agony, resulting physical agony and professional

damage. Though the third relief is sought against South Indian

Bank Ltd., the Bank is not arrayed as a respondent in the writ

petition. The third relief for payment of compensation is sought

for in connection with the proceedings before the Family Court,

Aluva in O.P.No.344 of 2023, which is one filed by the wife of the

appellant-petitioner.

16. In the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2026, the

learned Single Judge noticed that the grievance of the appellant-

petitioner is regarding furnishing of his account details by the Bank

before the Family Court, pursuant to the summons issued by the

said court. In such a case, it was for the petitioner to approach

either the Family Court or the Appellate Court challenging the

issuance of summons. When the court summons account details,

the Bank is bound to provide the same. The Bank cannot refuse W.A.No.619 of 2026 13 2026:KER:25594

to provide the account details on the ground that it would violate

the right to privacy of the petitioner.

17. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel

for South Indian Bank Ltd., for the respondent, pointed out that

the appellant-petitioner had approached the Consumer

Commission claiming compensation, which is not disclosed in

W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026. The learned Single Judge found that,

sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High

Court cannot consider the prayers made by the petitioner.

18. During the course of arguments, it has come out that

the orders passed by the Family Court allowing summons to

witness was under challenge before a Division Bench of this Court

in an O.P.(FC), invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, which ended in dismissal.

19. We notice that the order dated 12.06.2025 of the

Family Court, Aluva in I.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2025 in O.P.No.344 of

2023 and the order dated 19.08.2025 in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in

O.P.No.344 of 2023, which was one filed seeking review of the

order dated 12.06.2025 in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2025, were under

challenge in O.P.(FC)No.570 of 2025 filed by the appellant herein.

The said original petition ended in dismissal by the judgment W.A.No.619 of 2026 14 2026:KER:25594

dated 06.10.2025. R.P.No.1412 of 2025 filed by the appellant

herein seeking review of the said judgment dated 06.10.2025 also

ended in dismissal by the order dated 27.10.2025. The appellant

has chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing W.P.(C)No.5856 of

2026, with unclean hands, suppressing material facts from the

notice of this Court.

20. As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v. Kensington

Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486], an

applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast'

cannot hold a writ of the court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or

concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery,

manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no

place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.

21. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India

[(2007) 8 SCC 449] the Apex Court reiterated that a prerogative

remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in exercising

extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the

conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the

applicant does not disclose full facts or suppress relevant materials

or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the Court may W.A.No.619 of 2026 15 2026:KER:25594

dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. This rule has

been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous

litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The

very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true,

complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly

stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of

the writ courts would become impossible.

22. In Prestige Lights Limited [(2007) 8 SCC 449] the

Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the High Court is exercising discretionary and

extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and above, a Court of Law is also

a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a

party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before

the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of

material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have

been placed before the court, the writ court may refuse to

entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits

of the matter.

23. We deprecate in the strongest words, the conduct of

the appellant-petitioner in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with W.A.No.619 of 2026 16 2026:KER:25594

'soiled hands', suppressing material facts from the notice of this

Court.

24. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no

grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment dated

16.02.2026 of the learned Single Judge, whereby W.P.(C)No.5856

of 2026 filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed, declining

the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

In the result, this writ appeal, which is nothing but an abuse

of process of the court, fails and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE

bkn/-