Appeals – Trace Your Case

KUNHAYAMMED V. STATE OF KERALA

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, 2000 (3) KLT354

Can the high court entertain a prayer for review of its order if such a review can disturb the order earlier passed by the Supreme court?
When the orders of HC and SC have merged by affirmation, can a review petition be filed against the order of the High Court?

Order 47 Rule 1 subrule (1) (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 states that an Application for review of judgment can be filed by Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred.

The Kerala Private Forests Act, 1971 was enacted by the State of Kerala to provide for the vesting in the Government of private forests for the assignment thereof to agriculturists.
The Act stated that anyone could object to any decision of the Tribunal within 60 days by an appeal against such decision to the High Court under Section 8A of the Act.
A family raised a dispute before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, related to 1020 acres of land.
The Tribunal held that the land did not vest in the Government, and subsequently, An appeal was filed by the State of Kerala before the High Court of Kerala, which was dismissed.
There was no statutory remedy of appeal, revision or review provided against the order of the High Court.
The State of Kerala filed a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, and the SC dismissed the same.
But later on, the high court allowed the hearing of the review petition for its earlier order, aggrieved by the same; the petitioners appealed in the SC.

The supreme court held that review could be preferred in the High Court before the special leave is granted, but not after it is granted as once special leave is granted, the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the High Courts order vests in the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot entertain a review thereafter.
The court further stated that once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked, the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.

Shri Bhagwan Narvadeshwar Ji Maharaj Mandir v. Sunita Singh MANU/UP/4692/2018

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant under Order XVII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. on the ground that the application was placed before the trial court to adduce evidence in the form of oral evidence and, therefore, there was no occasion to dismiss the suit?
Whether the trial court has rejected the application by wrongly interpreting the provisions for adducing and taking the evidence under Order XVIII Rule 2 read with Rule 3 (A) of C.P.C?
Whether the lower appellate court could not have decided the issues on merits merely by placing reliance on the findings returned by the trial court while disposing of the injunction application.

The plaintiff/appellant, through his Manager, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants/respondents from raising any construction on a piece of land by claiming that it is disputed.
The defendants/respondents denied the plaint allegations through the written statement and set up the defence that the land of the temple was never in dispute.
Plaintiff moved an application along with a list of four persons to whom he wanted to be examined. The first amongst them was Itwar Nath.
The trial court rejected the application stating that the oral evidence could have been led in the order of witnesses listed before the court at the instance of the plaintiff.
It also held that the plaintiff, having failed to produce the main witness, namely, Itwar Nath, cannot be permitted to adduce the oral evidence of other witnesses.
On appeal, the appellate court concurred with the finding so returned by the trial court in rejecting the application and found the order to be justified.

The court held that they did not see any illegality or manifest error in the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the application under Order XVIII Rule 3A C.P.C.
Thus, the court stated that the trial court has rightly rejected the application and dismissed the suit under Order XVII Rule 3, and the finding returned by the court is a concurrent one and does not appear to be vitiated for any non-consideration of any material on record or misreading of any evidence.
The court further stated that the lower appellate court could have decided the issues by relying on the findings returned by the trial court because it had additionally and not entirely referred to such findings.