Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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