MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE DO NOT CONTROL THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OR ORDER IN A WRIT PETITION – Kerl. HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala has asserted its wide powers of review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, stated that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not control the court's jurisdiction to review a judgment or order in a writ petition. The court emphasized that the Procedure Code is merely a guiding principle and not applicable to review petitions filed under Article 226 and 227.

Justice Kunhikrishnan said, "The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to review a judgment is wide and not controlled by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the contention of the review petitioner that a portion of the judgment/order cannot be reviewed is unsustainable."

The court further clarified that a portion of a judgment or order can be reviewed under Article 226 and 227, as long as it does not contradict other findings in the same judgment or order. This highlights the expansive nature of the court's review powers, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the legal and factual aspects of a case.

In the judgment, the court also addressed several other important issues. It rejected the contention of the review petitioner regarding the commission of misconduct, but emphasized that when disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the disciplinary authority should decide the matter independently without being influenced by any previous observations made in the judgment.

The court left open the question of the maintainability of Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings and allowed the review petitioner to raise the issue separately in the preliminary inquiry. This decision allows for a separate examination of the applicability and merits of Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings in the case at hand.

Moreover, the High Court of Kerala declared that it has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of district courts and subordinate courts in the Lakshadweep Islands. As the district courts and subordinate courts in Lakshadweep are under the supervision of the High Court of Kerala, it clarified that the High Court has the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings against these officers.

The court modified the disciplinary authority, stating that the additional third respondent is the High Court of Kerala, and directed consequential corrections to be made in the judgment accordingly. Until the High Court passes the consequential order, the review petitioner is deemed to be under suspension.

This landmark judgment by the High Court of Kerala reaffirms the court's expansive review powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, establishing a significant precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: 21 June 2023

CHERIYA KOYA  vs T.ADMINISTRATION OF LAKSHADWEEP

Latest Legal News