SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Joshy, S/o. Immanikkal Thomas – Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep, S/O. Ramesadath Krishnan – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 199 OF 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.S. Rajesh, M. Shaju Purushothaman

Point of Law: Availability of such a remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure to be construed as near to total bar for the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Order 43 Rule 1(d) - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Original Petition – Condonations of delay - An application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Finally, both petitions were allowed on condition to deposit Rs.7,000/-, within 15 days as cost - High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure (Para 5).

Findings of the Court: It is emphatically clear that wherever proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Further the availability of such a remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure to be construed as near to total bar for the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Result: Original Petition stands dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Common order in I.A.Nos.1258/2019 and 1259/2019 in O.S.No.795/2012 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. I have perused the order impugned. As per the order impugned, the learned Munsiff considered an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code along with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Finally, both petitions were allowed on condition to deposit Rs.7,000/-, within 15 days as cost. In the above order, it is made clear that if the cost not paid as directed, the applications would stand dismissed.

4. The petitioner herein failed to pay the said cost and accordingly, application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, along with delay petition stood dismissed. The said order is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(d). Now comes the significance of power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In cases where remedy by way of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. While answering the query, a decision of the Apex Court reported in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabhai and Others Vs Tuiticorin Educational Society & Others (2019 KHC 7006) assumes significance. Going by the ratio in the above decision, it is emphatically clear that wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Further the availability of such a remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure to be construed as near to total bar for the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above legal position, this Original Petition is not maintainable before this Court. Therefore, this Original Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Court as per law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top