TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies doctrine of merger in dismissal of Revision Petition</h1> <h3>State of Kerala & Anr. Versus Kondottyparambanmoosa & Ors.</h3> State of Kerala & Anr. Versus Kondottyparambanmoosa & Ors. - 2008 AIR 422, 2008 (11) SCR 957, 2008 (8) SCC 65, 2008 (9) JT 289, 2008 (11) SCALE 136 Issues Involved:1. Whether the dismissal of a Revision Petition on the ground of delay results in the merger of the order of the lower court with that of the High Court.2. Whether the High Court was right in holding that the order of the Board ceased to exist when the Revision was dismissed by the High Court and thus there was no scope to invoke Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Merger of Order on Dismissal of Revision Petition Due to Delay:The Supreme Court examined whether the dismissal of a Revision Petition on the ground of delay results in the merger of the lower court's order with that of the High Court. The appellants argued that the High Court's dismissal of the revision petition on the ground of delay did not amount to a confirmation of the Board's order dated 13th June 1985. The Court referred to the principle laid down in 'Kunhayammed & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2000) 6 SCC 359]' which states that the principle of merger applies only if the revisional judgment is on merits. The Court also cited 'Smt. S. Kalawati vs. Durga Prasad & Anr. [AIR 1975 SC 1272]' and 'Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat [(1969) 2 SCC 74]' to emphasize that a dismissal on preliminary grounds does not constitute a decision on appeal. Therefore, the dismissal of the Revision Petition on the ground of delay did not result in the merger of the Board's order with that of the High Court.2. High Court's Ruling on Ceasing of Board's Order and Scope of Section 85(9):The High Court had set aside the order of the Board, reasoning that the order dated 13th June 1985 ceased to exist as it merged with the High Court's order dismissing the revision. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that since the High Court dismissed the revision only on the ground of delay and not on merits, the Board's order did not merge with the High Court's order. The Court highlighted that Section 85(9) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, empowers the Taluk Land Board to set aside its order and proceed afresh if specific grounds are satisfied. The Court found that the High Court failed to consider that the earlier revision was dismissed on the ground of delay and not on merits, thus the doctrine of merger did not apply. The Court emphasized that the Board retained jurisdiction under Section 85(9) to reopen the case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the doctrine of merger applies only when a higher forum entertains an appeal or revision and passes an order on merits, not when the appeal or revision is dismissed due to delay. Therefore, the Board's order dated 13th June 1985 did not merge with the High Court's dismissal order, and the Board was entitled to reopen the case under Section 85(9) of the Act. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 