IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
LATHEESH VALANGI – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ARREAR RECOVERY) – Respondent
WA NO. 13 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.20384 OF 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the judgment based on facts not previously raised. (Para 1) |
| 2. impugned orders argued based on failure to sign. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations on jurisdiction of appeal. (Para 3) |
| 4. appeal cannot proceed on unestablished facts. (Para 5) |
| 5. withdrawal of appeal and implications for future. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C)No.20384/2023; but concedes that the singular issue impelled herein had not been raised, much less argued, before the learned Single Judge.
2. Sri.S.Anil Kumar – learned counsel for the appellant, conceded that it had been omitted to be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the impugned orders, as far as his client’s case is concerned, had not been signed by the Authorities, either physically or digitally; and consequently that this contention had not been considered or answered in the judgment assailed. He argued that, nevertheless, his client is entitled to raise this aspect before this Court for the first time, since it is one edificed on the law alone.
3. We are taken aback by the submissions afore because, normally a judgment can be tested in Appeal, doubting the reasons and the ratiocination of the learned Judge, on grounds raised. One of the settled exceptions is when the issue is purely in the ambit of law. However, in the case at hand, the issue now sought to be projected is that the impugned orders were not signed by the Authorities. This is surely not a question solely on law, since the imputation has to be first established on facts.
4. Obviously, the remedy of the appellant was to have attempted a review before the learned Single Judge.
5. In the conceded position this Appeal is now being attempted - admittedly edificed on a ground which was never raised before the learned Judge - we cannot find it to be maintainable.
6. Sri.S.Anil Kumar, at this time, requested that his client be allowed to withdraw this Appeal, with liberty to move the learned Single Bench with an appropriate review.
In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed as having been withdrawn; with every liberty available to the appellant in law clarified to be not precluded.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.