Dismissal For Default Alone Can't Justify Rejection Of Restoration Plea Citing Lack Of 'Vigilance': Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a dismissal for default alone cannot justify the rejection of restoration plea citing lack of vigilance.
Justice T R Ravi made the observation in a petition challenging rejection of an application seeking restoration of execution proceedings, which were dismissed for default.
The Sub Court while dismissing the restoration application had reasoned that since there has been a previous default by the petitioner (in execution proceedings), he could not be treated as 'vigilant'.
Disagreeing with such an approach, the High Court observed:
“The reason stated in Ext.P7(order under challenge) is that on an earlier occasion, there was a dismissal for default and the court has thereupon concluded that the petitioner is not vigilant. I do not find any justification for the said reason.”
The Court thus allowed the original petition by setting aside the impugned order and directed the concerned court to take up the execution application and dispose of it in accordance with law.
Case Title: Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors.
Case No: OP(C) 2520/ 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Counsel for Petitioner: S Nikhil Sankar