Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 727 (KER)

Rajan T. P. v. George Thattil

2016-08-25

A.HARIPRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree in A.S.154/2014 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. O.S.3072/2009 before the II Additional Munsiff, Thrissur was a suit for compensation. That suit was decreed by the trial court. Against which, the said appeal was preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below seriously erred in pronouncing the judgment without hearing the counsel for the appellant as he had expired before the date of hearing. In fact, the appeal was disposed of without hearing the learned counsel for the appellant is the sum and substance of the contentions of the appellant. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the appeal was initially heard by the lower appellate court on 31.03.2015 and the matter was reserved for judgment. Thereafter, the matter was reopened on 10.04.2015. Then it was adjourned to 22.05.2015 and thereafter it was posted to 30.06.2015 and on that day, it was again reserved for judgment and the judgment was pronounced on 04.07.2015. It is the case of the party that, the counsel who appeared for the appellant (U.O. Jose, Advocate) passed away on 12.06.2015. 5. It is therefore clear that the court below must have reopened the matter to avoid the difficulty of keeping the appeal reserved for judgment for a long period. It is rudimentary that once the matter is reopened for hearing, it should be called on the Bench and the parties should be given adequate opportunity to be heard. Without affording an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in this matter, especially when the counsel engaged had expired, the court below should not have pronounced the judgment. Therefore, I find that the judgment and decree passed by the court below without hearing the counsel for the appellant is bad in law. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower appellate court directing that, the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard effectively and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.