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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
KOCHUTHRESIA JULIUS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
RP NO. 1381 OF 2025 | RP NO. 1509 OF 2025 | WA NO.801 OF 2024 | WA NO.793 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.M.VARGHESE
For the Respondents: K.B.ARUNKUMAR, PA HARISH, MANU SRINATH

Review Petitions under CPC must show clear error; past withdrawal orders are final unless specific conditions are met.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes Review Petitions filed under Section XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the CPC, 1908, challenging a previous order allowing Writ Appeals to be withdrawn. The Court observed that the Withdrawal Order did not reserve liberty for future actions. The submissions regarding a recent order from the Cochin Corporation were determined to be irrelevant to the Writ Appeals. The Court found no error in the previous ruling. The Review Petitions are dismissed.

Table of Content
1. review petition filings and initial procedural orders. (Para 1 , 2)
2. affidavit reveals critical information regarding withdrawal intentions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. irrelevance of separate actions to initial appeals. (Para 5)
4. conclusion about finalized withdrawal orders and absence of error. (Para 7)

ORDER SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, J These Review Petitions have been filed under Section XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC, 1908 against the judgment dated 03.07.2025 passed in WA No.801/2024 and WA No.793/2024 permitting the petitioners to withdraw the Writ Appeals.

2. While disposing of the Writ Appeals, the following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ appeal. Permission is granted. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.”

3. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioners submitted that the arguing counsel at that time never intended to withdraw the Writ Appeals. In view of the aforesaid, we directed the learned counsel for the Review Petitioners to file his personal affidavit.

4. We have perused the affidavit. In the affidavit, it is not stated that he did not make any prayer for withdrawal of the Writ Appeals. However, it is stated that no liberty was reserved in the judgment while withdrawing the Writ Appeals. On perusal of the grounds raised in the Review Petition, it is seen that all the grounds relate to the merits of the case. The ground with regard to liberty was never raised.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, during pendency of the Writ Appeals, the Secretary, Cochin Municipal Corporation had issued orders dated 19.06.2025 and liberty may be granted to challenge the aforesaid order.

6. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

7. We find that the order issued by the Secretary, Cochin Municipal Corporation dated 19.06.2025 is a separate cause of action and has nothing to do with the present Writ Appeals. Accordingly, taking into consideration, the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the Review Petitioners, we are of the view that no error has crept in the order passed by this Court while allowing the appellants to withdraw the Writ Appeals. No liberty is required for challenging a fresh cause of action. Accordingly, we find no error in the judgment passed in those Writ Appeals. Accordingly, these Review Petitions are dismissed.

sd/-

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