Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Discretion to Choose Remedy: When multiple remedies are available, such as revision or appeal, the aggrieved party generally has the right to select any one of these options. Once a remedy is chosen, the consequences and incidents attached to that remedy follow. This is supported by judicial pronouncements emphasizing the petitioner’s free choice among parallel remedies ["
SIRIPALA V LANEROLLE AND ANOTHER
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1465"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3136"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 481"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 145"].Availability of Statutory Remedies: Courts consistently hold that if a statutory remedy exists—such as appeal under specific provisions—the petitioner must ordinarily avail of that remedy before seeking revision or other extraordinary relief. Failure to do so can bar the petitioner from invoking revisionary powers unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated ["
SIRIPALA V LANEROLLE AND ANOTHER
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1465"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3136"].Parallel Remedies and Judicial Discretion: Courts recognize that both appeal and revision are equally efficacious in many cases. The mere existence of an alternative remedy does not invalidate the earlier forum’s jurisdiction nor does it prevent the petitioner from exercising their choice. The policy behind this principle is to uphold the petitioner’s right to select the most appropriate forum for redress ["
SIRIPALA V LANEROLLE AND ANOTHER
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 481"], ["2022 0 Supreme(AP) 382"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 145"].Exceptions and Exceptional Circumstances: Courts may entertain revision even if an alternative remedy exists, but only under exceptional circumstances or if the petitioner demonstrates that the remedy of appeal is inadequate or not efficacious in the given context ["
SIRIPALA V LANEROLLE AND ANOTHER
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1465"].Legal Principles in Specific Contexts: In civil and administrative cases, specific provisions (such as Order 43 Rule 1(q) of C.P.C.) prescribe the only permissible remedy—appeal—making revision not maintainable. This underscores the principle that the remedy choice is often governed by statutory provisions ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3136"].
The prevailing judicial doctrine affirms that it is the petitioner’s prerogative to choose among available parallel remedies such as revision or appeal. However, the petitioner must generally avail of the statutory remedy before seeking alternative or extraordinary remedies like revision, unless exceptional circumstances are established. Courts uphold this principle to promote procedural discipline and respect statutory frameworks, ensuring that remedies are exercised in accordance with law.
In essence, the petitioner has the right to select the remedy best suited to their case, but this choice is subject to statutory restrictions and the availability of remedies. When multiple remedies exist, courts tend to favor allowing the petitioner to exercise their discretion, provided they adhere to procedural requirements and do not bypass statutory remedies unnecessarily.
References:-
SIRIPALA V LANEROLLE AND ANOTHER
- 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1465- 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3136- 2022 0 Supreme(MP) 1165- 2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 582- 2024 0 Supreme(All) 481- 2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 145- 2023 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 20782
In the complex landscape of the Indian judiciary, navigating the right remedial path can make or break a case. A common question arises: Relief of and : It is the Prerogative of the Petitioner to Choose in What Remedy to Avail? This query touches on a fundamental principle—does the petitioner hold the ultimate choice between invoking or , or are there statutory and judicial constraints guiding this decision?
While petitioners generally have flexibility, courts emphasize first, often prioritizing statutory appeals over revisions. This blog post delves into the legal framework, key precedents, exceptions, and practical recommendations, drawing from established case law. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
: This is a statutory right allowing a party to challenge a lower court's decision on facts and law. It's the primary remedy in most cases, governed by provisions like those in the or . Appeals provide a full rehearing opportunity, making them robust but time-consuming.
: Under or , is supervisory in nature. Courts intervene if there's a jurisdictional error, illegality, or irregularity causing a failure of justice. It's not a right but a discretionary power, often viewed as exceptional 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2559 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 944.
Courts have ruled that when an is available, it typically supersedes to prevent . For instance, in licensing matters under the , the only remedy against a refusal is , not a writ petition 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2028.
Petitioners do have some prerogative, but it's not absolute. The law favors the chosen remedy if it's efficacious, but failure to pursue it can bar further relief. Judicial precedents underscore that opting for one doesn't always preclude others, yet bypassing a primary remedy invites .
In one ruling, after a under was availed, a subsequent petition under was deemed not maintainable, as it circumvented , which bars second revisions 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1788 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 41. Similarly, The second petition is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any court warranting interference in 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1898.
Indian courts have clarified this through consistent rulings:
Preference for Statutory Remedies: refrain from under if an exists under CPC. The High Court has emphasized that the availability of an should deter it from exercising its jurisdiction under of the Constitution, especially when a specific remedy is provided under the CPC 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1104.
Exhaustion Doctrine: Petitioners must typically exhaust appeals before or writs. In pollution control cases, writs were dismissed, directing parties to appeals: Petitioner is directed to avail the remedy of as provided under the Act 2005 0 Supreme(Jhk) 844.
Rent Control Contexts: In eviction disputes under , ownership denial triggers proof burdens, but remedies follow statutory appeals or revisions 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3940. The court assessed, To what relief the petitioner is entitled? Whether the respondent is liable to be vacated and handover the demised premises to the petitioner, ultimately dismissing on merits.
These cases illustrate that while choice exists, it's tempered by procedure. Courts apply tests like shocking the conscience of court or if orders are wrong when petitioners skip remedies 2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 582 2023 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 893.
Exceptions allow direct higher relief:
Fundamental Rights Violation: Writs may proceed despite alternatives if rights under Articles 14, 19, or 21 are infringed or actions are arbitrary 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 187.
Ineffective Remedies: If appeals are redundant or futile, courts permit alternatives 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 430. For example, in applications, judges outline tests for relief when fundamental facts are at stake 2023 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 20782.
Exercising Discretion: Courts may invoke in shocking cases, as counsel urged under CPC provisions 2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 582.
The petition may be disposed of, relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of , if so advised 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 2028, but exceptions prevent injustice.
To navigate effectively:
Assess Availability: Review if or fits—appeals for merits, revisions for errors 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 189.
Compliance First: Adhere to timelines and formats to avoid technical dismissals 2004 3 Supreme 205.
Weigh Writs Carefully: Reserve for rights violations; otherwise, courts relegate to statutes 1999 7 Supreme 325.
Avoid Multiplicity: Second revisions or inherent powers post- are risky 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1572 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1898.
Document Thoroughly: Prove why chosen remedy is apt, especially in exceptions 1998 0 Supreme(SC) 641.
In practice, like air pollution closures, appeals must be pursued within timelines, with stays possible 2005 0 Supreme(Jhk) 844.
The petitioner's prerogative to choose or exists but is guided by law favoring statutory exhaustion. While flexibility aids strategy, courts prioritize order and justice, barring parallel remedies unless exceptional.
Key Takeaways:- Opt for appeals when available; revisions are supervisory.- Exhaust remedies to avoid writ dismissals.- Exceptions for rights breaches or futility.- Always evaluate case specifics with counsel.
By understanding these nuances, litigants can select optimally. For tailored advice, engage a legal expert. References include 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 2559 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 944 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 189 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 430 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 187 2004 3 Supreme 205 1999 7 Supreme 325 2002 5 Supreme 302 1996 3 Supreme 373 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1104 2004 0 Supreme(Raj) 1788 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 41 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 1572 1998 0 Supreme(SC) 641 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 2120.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
#RevisionVsAppeal #IndianLegalRemedies #PetitionerRights
(2) Revision would lie if (i) aggrieved party has no other remedy (ii) if there is, then revision would be available if special circumstances could be shown to warrant it . ... (4) Failure to avail himself of the alternative remedy of appeal would not necessarily be a bar to Invoking the revisionary powers provided there are exceptional circums....
The learned Counsel for the petitioner agrees that the petitioner has the option to file a revision under Section 438 of BNSS, but he insists that when the petitioner has got two remedies available, he has the discretion to choose any one of the two remedies available to him. ... Heard Sri Abhyudaya Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, the learned AGA for....
However, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per Order 43 Rule 1(q) of C.P.C, against the order passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 2 of C.P.C, the only remedy is to prefer a regular appeal as provided under Order 43 of C.P.C and not filing Civil Revision Petition. ... specific remedy of appeal as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself. ... Therefore, this ....
Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973, there is a provision for appeal under Section 6(3) and, therefore, petitioner having alternate statutory remedy be relegated to avail said remedy. ... In view of the statutory alternative remedy, petitioner is relegated to avail the same. In above terms....
Counsel for the petitioner however invited this Court to exercise its powers of revision ex meromotuor in application No. 1265/81 and grant the petitioner relief under section 759(2) of the Civil Procedure Code'. ... It was seen that the 'shocking the conscience of court' test, and considerations whether the order is ex facie wrong have been often applied when the petitioner failed to #....
Counsel for the petitioner however invited this Court to exercise its powers of revision ex mero motuor in application No. 1265/81 and grant the petitioner relief under section 759(2) of the Civil Procedure Code’. ... It was seen that the ’shocking the conscience of court’ test, and considerations whether the order is ex facie wrong have been often applied when the petitioner failed to....
In the above referred case, Full Bench of this Court not converted the Civil Revision Petition into appeal, but dismissed the revision petition as it is not maintainable giving liberty to the petitioners therein to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 96 CPC against the orders of the executing Court ... In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed ....
The Court is of the view that both the parallel remedies are equally efficacious and provide similar relief. The respondents 2 to 6, being the aggrieved persons, have right to choose the remedy they prefer to avail and petitioner shall be bound by the same. 15. ... Ordinarily, When more than one remedy is available to a party in respect of the same grievance, it is open....
The Court is of the view that both the parallel remedies are equally efficacious and provide similar relief. The respondents 2 to 6, being the aggrieved persons, have right to choose the remedy they prefer to avail and petitioner shall be bound by the same. 15. ... Ordinarily, When more than one remedy is available to a party in respect of the same grievance, it is ope....
OIC Eppawala and another CA PHC APN 99 2006 CA Minute 04.10.2007 Sarath Abrew Judge of the Court of Appeal (as he then was) had observed the tests that should be used in granting relief in a revision application. ... The basic of fundamental issues of fact the proof of which is essential, to the claim for the relief the Petitioner seeks in these proceedings, have in the first instance to be established by....
The petition is, thus, disposed of, relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, if so advised.
iv. To what relief the revision petitioner is entitled? Whether the respondent is liable to be vacated and handover the demised premises to the revision petitioner. 1. On appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller has ultimately found that the revision petitioner is the owner of the demised premises. 2. It cannot be construed that the respondent had committed willful default in payment of rent.
The second revision petition is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any court warranting interference in inherent jurisdiction. In my view, the trial court was justified in taking cognizance as there exists a ground to proceed against the petitioners so as the order of the revisional court affirming the order of the trial court. In this view of the matter, when....
3. In this view of the matter, when alternate remedy by way of filing revision is available to the petitioner, then the petitioner is required to avail the said remedy.
Till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. If such appeal is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today then the appellate tribunal shall consider the appeal on merit after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is dismissed at this stage. Petitioner is directed to avail the remedy of appeal as pr....
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
