Mathai M. K vs. Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban
AI Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Mathai M. K. and another, refusing to grant them leave to appeal. The Court's decision stemmed from the petitioners not being parties to the original suit or the writ petition, thereby highlighting the strict procedural requirement for locus standi in appellate proceedings and emphasizing who has the right to challenge lower court decisions.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
A Special Leave Petition (Civil) with Diary No. 25409/2020 was filed by Mathai M. K. & Anr. against Fr. Thomas Paul Ramban & Ors., challenging an impugned final judgment and order dated 03-12-2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WPC No. 25089/2019. The petitioners also filed several interlocutory applications including for condonation of delay and permission to file the petition. The matter was heard by a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah on 05-01-2021.
Timeline of Events
High Court of Kerala passed impugned order in WPC No. 25089/2019.
Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 25409/2020) filed by petitioners (as per JSON filing date).
Interlocutory Applications (Condonation of Delay, Exemption from C/C, Exemption from Affidavit, Permission to File Petition) filed.
Supreme Court heard the petition.
Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and rejected the application for leave to appeal.
Key Factual Findings
The petitioners were not parties in the suit as well as in the writ petition.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners, by filing the Special Leave Petition and associated interlocutory applications (including for permission to file the petition), implicitly argued that they had a right or sufficient interest to be granted leave to appeal, despite not being original parties to the impugned High Court proceedings. They also sought condonation for any delays and exemptions for procedural requirements.
Respondent's Arguments
While not explicitly detailed in the order, the respondents' counsel would have opposed the grant of leave to appeal, primarily on the grounds that the petitioners lacked locus standi, not having been parties to the original suit or the writ petition. The presence of caveats suggests preparedness to defend against any such appeal.
Court's Reasoning
The Court's reasoning was directly based on the petitioners' status. It concluded that 'the petitioners not being party in the suit as well as in the writ petition,' they were ineligible to be granted leave to file the special leave petition. This indicates a strict adherence to the principle that only parties to the original proceedings typically possess the necessary locus standi to invoke the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, especially under Article 136.
- Strict Adherence to Procedure
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Leave to file the special leave petition cannot be granted to the petitioners.
- 2.The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected.
- 3.Consequently, the special leave petition is also dismissed.
Precedential Assessment
Binding (SC)
This is a brief order from the Supreme Court, explicitly stating the reason for dismissal based on locus standi. While concise, it reiterates a fundamental principle regarding who can invoke appellate jurisdiction, making it binding on all lower courts for similar factual matrices.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.33 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)....... Diary No(s).25409/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-12-2019 in WPC No.25089/2019 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)
MATHAI M. K. & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
FR. THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.137178/2020-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.137159/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.137161/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA No.137158/2020-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..))
Date : 05-01-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, Adv. Ms. Nikita Panhalkar, Adv. Mr. Maria Nedumpara, Adv.
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. E. M. S. Anam, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
The petitioners not being party in the suit as well as in the writ petition, we are of the view that leave to file the special leave petition cannot be granted to the petitioners. The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, the special leave petition is also dismissed. Signature Not Verified
(ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER Reason:
Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2021.01.05 17:28:44 IST