Court held that when civil revision under Section 115 CPC is the ordinary remedy, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable despite supervisory jurisdiction. Petition disposed without prejudice to right of filing revision.
Original petition disposed without prejudice to right of petitioner to file civil revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/15TH PHALGUNA 1934
OP(C).No. 872 of 2013 (O)
-----------------------------------[C.M.A.NO.645/01 OF 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA]
PETITIONER:
P.M.RAJAMANI, S/O.MURUGAN, KEEZHATHOOR KARA, KEEZHATHOOR VILLAGE, MARAYOOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.BABU SEBASTIAN (NIRAPPEL).
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, DEVIKULAM- 685 113.
BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FORESTS) SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
O.P.(C). NO.872/2013-O:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M.54487/01 DTD. 02/11/2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A. 645/2001.
EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A. 645/2001 DTD. 20/09/2011 OF THE 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, THODUPUZHA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Prv.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ===================== Original Petition (civil) No.872 of 2013 ============================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard counsel for petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Forest on maintainability of the original petition.
O.P.(C) No. 872 of 2013 -: 2 :-
way of revision under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”).
O.P.(C) No. 872 of 2013 -: 3 :-
filing civil revision under Sec.115 of the Code, invoke jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The proper remedy available to the petitioner is to file a civil revision challenging the impugned judgment subject to the law of limitation.
Original petition is disposed of without prejudice to that right of petitioner. The documents produced by petitioner along with this original petition shall returned to the counsel on request.
Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE
smv
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an appellate court judgment is maintainable when civil revision is the ordinary remedy.
Whether the petitioner should invoke Article 227 supervision instead of filing a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala V. Margrate JoshyReferred¶29
State of Kerala V. Margrate Joshy (1999 (3) KLT 359)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.M.RAJAMANI
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
