Back
Buyer Freed from DV Injunction Trap: Kerala HC Empowers Magistrates to Self-Correct
In a ruling that safeguards innocent property buyers entangled in family feuds, the has held that Magistrates handling domestic violence petitions can review and vacate their own interim orders to rectify clear errors. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, in Crl.R.P.555/2025 delivered on , set aside a Magistrate's refusal to lift an injunction on a portion of land, emphasizing the Latin maxim —no one shall be prejudiced by a court's mistake.
This decision, echoing recent news reports on the High Court's stance, underscores that judicial slip-ups cannot chain , directing Magistrates to act decisively under the .
From Family Feud to Frozen Land: The Dispute Unravels
The saga began in M.C.52/2022 before the , where Preema K, her minor children Ebin and Aleena, and others accused Molly Thomas and Sunil Thomas of domestic violence under . Seeking protection, they obtained an interim injunction via C.M.P.1060/2022 on , barring alienation or encumbrance on 18.95 ares of property in R.S.No.85/1, 85/2, and 85/21 of Chennithala Village, claimed as belonging to the accused.
Unbeknownst to the court then, parts of this land had changed hands legitimately. In 2016, Molly and Sunil sold 3.93 ares (plus more) to Easo V.G. (sale deed No.994/2016). Easo sold it to D. Geevarghese in 2023 (No.378/2023), who then transferred 2.43 ares to revision petitioners N.K. Prasannan and Sushama K in (No.76/2025).
The buyers, discovering the injunction clouded their title, filed C.M.P.670/2025 to vacate it for their 2.43 ares portion. The Magistrate dismissed it on , citing no power under the DV Act to declare title and advising a civil suit. Aggrieved, Prasannan and Sushama approached the .
Petitioners Strike Back: Proof of Clean Title, Plea for Relief
The revision petitioners armed themselves with sale deeds (Annexures A2-A4), irrefutably showing their from the original owners. They argued the injunction erroneously covered their bona fide purchase, causing undue prejudice without their fault. No declaration of title was sought—just vacation of the restraint under the same DV Act provisions that birthed it.
Respondents 2-6, including the State and complainants, were served notice but did not appear, leaving the petitioners' evidence unchallenged. The Public Prosecutor was heard.
Unchaining Justice: Court's Invocation of Ancient Wisdom
At the heart was a pivotal question: Can a Magistrate under review its order to undo a ?
Justice Pratheep Kumar answered affirmatively, rejecting the Magistrate's hands-off approach. Drawing on
Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India
(AIR 2025 SC 787), the court invoked
:
"
. A mistake committed by the Court cannot stand in the way of one's rightful benefit... the mistake must be so apparent that it does not brook any adjudication."
Kerala precedent in Sreejith Mon v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC 822) reinforced this, expanding the maxim to cover not just errors but any court act that, if correctly informed, would not have occurred—ensuring no party gains undue advantage or suffers impoverishment from faulty interim orders.
The High Court clarified: If a Magistrate can grant injunctions under , it holds to modify or vacate them when they ensnare innocents like the petitioners. Directing civil court recourse was unjust; the DV court must redress its own grievance.
Key Observations from the Bench
", which means that."
"The above order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.M.P.1060/2022 has no legs to stand on. Since the said order... has caused prejudice to the revision petitioners in their right to enjoy the property purchased by them for valid consideration, the same Court has a duty to set it right by vacating the order of injunction."
"If the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction under the provisions of the D.V. Act to pass an injunction order, the Magistrate also has the power to vacate or modify the same if it causes prejudice to another."
Injunction Lifted: A Precedent for Fair Play
The revision petition succeeded. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's dismissal of C.M.P.670/2025, allowed the application, and vacated the injunction specifically on the petitioners' 2.43 ares under sale deed No.76/2025.
This ruling has broad ripples: Bona fide buyers in DV disputes gain a direct remedy in the same forum, streamlining justice and preventing civil court ping-pong. It fortifies the DV Act's protective intent without stifling legitimate property rights, potentially influencing how Magistrates wield interim powers nationwide.
