Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

Kerala High Court Overturns Trial Court’s Decision, Emphasizes Urgent Relief in Government Suit Matters leave under Section 80(2)C.P.C.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has overturned a decision by the trial court, emphasizing the importance of urgent relief in suit matters involving the Government. The case in question, OP© No. 1373 of 2023, involved St. Pius X Church, Kumarapuram, represented by Rev. Fr. Jose Franklin.B., who filed a suit against the State of Kerala and several public officers. The trial court had rejected leave under Section 80(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), stating that there was no necessity for urgent relief in the matter.

However, the High Court, presided over by the Honourable Mr. Justice P. Somarajan, found the trial court’s decision untenable. The judgment highlighted the importance of understanding the real spirit behind Section 80 C.P.C. and its sub-sections. It was stated, “The whole scheme of Section 80 C.P.C. would show that sub-section (2) is inserted so as to protect the interest of the plaintiff from being defeated by any emergent danger or invasion on any valuable right.”

The High Court stressed the need for subjective satisfaction and assessing the probability of irreparable injury when considering urgent relief. Justice Somarajan asserted, “The court must give due consideration regarding the existence of any urgent or immediate relief rather than sticking on the requirement under sub-section (1) of Section 80 C.P.C. for compliance of two months prior notice in writing.”

The judgment clarified that Section 80(2) C.P.C. should be viewed as a precautionary measure to resolve grievances without litigation and not as an absolute condition precedent in all cases. It was stated, “The real spirit of the provision is resting on the question of avoidance of litigation as against the State Government or a public servant by providing them two months’ time to redress the grievance of the plaintiff and not to defeat any valuable right of the plaintiff, especially any urgent and immediate relief.”

The High Court found that the trial court had overlooked this cardinal principle when it returned the suit without considering the application for urgent remedy. As a result, the High Court set aside the trial court’s decision and restored the suit to the file of the trial court. The parties have been directed to appear before the trial court on 25th July 2023, where the court shall reconsider the grant of leave afresh and pass necessary orders accordingly.

This judgment carries significant implications for suits involving the Government and public officers in the state, as it emphasizes the need for timely and urgent relief in certain cases. The High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that the interest of the plaintiff should be protected, especially when facing emergent dangers or potential violations of valuable rights. The court’s decision promotes the effective administration of justice and upholds the principles of fairness and equity in legal proceedings involving the State and its agencies.

Date of Decision: 19th day of July 2023 

PIUS X CHURCH vs STATE OF KERALA,

Latest Legal News