Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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