Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, C.JAYACHANDRAN
Usha Umesh – Appellant
Versus
Alkarsf Apparels Pvt. Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition background and fraud allegation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. condonation of delay for review petition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on fraud and delay condonation. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. impact of fraud on judgments established. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. material suppression and relevance to judgment. (Para 19 , 22) |
| 6. dismissal of review petition and absence of merit. (Para 23 , 24) |
ORDER :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The Review Petitioner herein is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.41651/2022 and the appellant in W.A.No.858/2023. The judgments in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are sought to be reviewed by the instant proceedings, on the allegation of fraud having been perpetrated on the Court by suppression of a material fact.
2. As per the judgment dated 04.04.2023 in the Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent therein, KINFRA, was directed to consider the petitioners' claim to execute a lease in favour of the 1st petitioner therein. In the Writ Appeal, we made a minimal modification to the judgment enabling the Review Petitioner herein (1st respondent in the Writ Petition) an opportunity of being heard, while considering the petitioners' claim as directed by the learned
Fraud must involve suppression of a material fact that could affect the outcome of legal proceedings; mere claims of fraud are insufficient to warrant review of a judgment.
What would be a ‘material fact’ would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
A review petition is maintainable where there is fraud, suppression of material facts and developments involving the same land and that too when the property already became a property of the State.
The review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record, not for rearguing previously decided matters, consistent with established legal principles.
Rebuttable presumption - Plea of the records not being available or cannot be traced is often cited in matters which come to Court. Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a Court may....
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, ruling that all parties must be included in property disputes to ensure fair adjudication.
Suppression of material facts disentitles a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
