Courts Are Created To Adjudicate Substantial Interest Of Parties Rather Than Dispose Cases In Numerical Quantity: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court while dealing with the appeals filed by an execution applicant whose application got dismissed on default by the Execution Court observed that the Courts are created to adjudicate substantial interest of the parties rather than to dispose of the cases in a numerical quantity.
The Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held –
"On mere absence of a counsel or party, the court ought not have dismissed an application unless it was listed for their appearance. It is not a case, where the court recorded continuous absence of the parties before the execution court. The courts are created to adjudicate substantial interest of the parties rather than to dispose the cases in a numerical quantity. The court should be very sensitive in dealing with the cases of litigants, especially, many of the cases are remained non represented due to laches or negligence on the part of the counsel."
In the present case, the application of the applicant was dismissed by the Execution Court. His application was for the restoration of the case with an application to get the delay condoned.
Advocate Avm. Salahudin appeared for the appellant while Advocate Rajesh Sivaramankutty represented the respondent.
The High Court noted that there was no representation for the appellant. The Court further observed –
"We are of the view that the court committed a serious error in dismissing the petition without noting that there was negligence in prosecuting the application. A solitary instance cannot be a reason to dismiss the application. It is to be noted that in execution, there is no procedure of listing the cases for a trial with an advance list and there was no direction of the court for the appellant/petitioner to be present for hearing of the case. Therefore, the execution court could not have dismissed the application for non appearance."
The Court further held that "… the impugned order can be set aside for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, Ex.FA No.15/2020 is disposed of. The impugned order is set aside. 9. Consequent to the disposal of Ex.FA No.15/2020, FAO No.23/2020 has become infructuous. Accordingly, FAO No.23/2020 is dismissed as infructuous."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the Execution Court and directed the parties to appear before the Execution Court on December 14, 2022.
Cause Title - Muhammed Shanavas V. Radhakrishnan