Madras High Court Dismisses Intra-Court Appeal Against Review Order as Not Maintainable — Review Order Cannot Be Challenged When Original Writ Petition Order Has Become Final

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 112
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present intra-court appeal was filed by the Management of Irudhukottai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. against an order dated 12.03.2025 dismissing their Review Application No. 40 of 2015. The background involves a dispute where the 2nd respondent, an employee, was dismissed from service after a criminal conviction. He filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, Salem, which was allowed on 08.07.2009. The Management challenged this order in W.P.No.21443 of 2009, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 09.08.2011. The Management then filed W.A.No.2294 of 2012, but before the Division Bench, they sought permission to withdraw the appeal to file a review application. The Division Bench granted liberty on 07.11.2012. Consequently, the Management filed Review Application No. 40 of 2015, which was dismissed on 12.03.2025. The present appeal challenges only the review dismissal order. The 2nd respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing that the order in the writ petition had become final and the review order alone cannot be challenged in a writ appeal. The appellant's counsel could not provide a clear answer. The court observed that even if the appeal were allowed, the writ petition order would remain in force, and the appeal against the review order is not maintainable. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ appeal as not maintainable with no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Intra-Court Appeal - Maintainability - Review Order - Clause 15 of Letters Patent - The court considered whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order dismissing a review application when the original writ petition order had become final. The appellant had filed a review application after the writ petition was dismissed, and the review was also dismissed. The court held that the appeal against the review order alone is not maintainable because the writ petition order remains in force and cannot be challenged indirectly. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed in a review application when the original writ petition order has become final.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Writ Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Law Points

  • Intra-Court Appeal against order in review application is not maintainable when the original writ petition order has become final
  • Review order cannot be challenged in writ appeal if the writ petition was dismissed and no appeal was filed against it
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 231

W.A.No.2508 of 2025 AND C.M.P.NO.19488 OF 2025

2026-03-11

S.M.Subramaniam, K.Surender

2026:MHC:1073

Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy for Appellant, Mr.S.V.Navin Prabhu for R2

The Management, K.K.123, Irudhukottai Primary Agricultural, Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd., Rep. by its Special Officer, Irudhukottai, Thenkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.

1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. 2. G.Vijayakumar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Intra-Court Appeal against dismissal of Review Application

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 in Review Application No. 40 of 2015 in WP No. 21443 of 2009

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the dismissal of their review application against the order in the writ petition

Previous Decisions

Labour Court allowed claim petition on 08.07.2009; Writ Petition No. 21443 of 2009 dismissed on 09.08.2011; Writ Appeal No. 2294 of 2012 withdrawn with liberty to file review; Review Application No. 40 of 2015 dismissed on 12.03.2025

Issues

Whether an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order passed in a review application when the original writ petition order has become final.

Submissions/Arguments

Respondent 2 raised preliminary issue that the order in the writ petition has become final and review order alone cannot be challenged in the Writ Appeal. Appellant's counsel had no clear answer to address the maintainability issue.

Ratio Decidendi

An intra-court appeal against an order dismissing a review application is not maintainable when the original writ petition order has become final, as the review order cannot be challenged independently and the writ petition order remains in force.

Judgment Excerpts

Mr.S.V.Navin Prabhu, learned counsel for R2 has raised preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the Intra Court Appeal on the ground that the order passed in the writ petition has become final and review order alone cannot be challenged in the Writ Appeal. Even presuming that writ appeal is allowed, then also the writ petition order will be in force. Since Writ Court dismissed the petition filed by the Management, the present Writ Appeal cannot be entertained.

Procedural History

Labour Court allowed claim petition on 08.07.2009. Management filed WP No. 21443 of 2009 which was dismissed on 09.08.2011. Management filed WA No. 2294 of 2012 which was withdrawn with liberty to file review on 07.11.2012. Review Application No. 40 of 2015 was dismissed on 12.03.2025. Present intra-court appeal filed against the review dismissal order.

Acts & Sections

  • Letters Patent of the Madras High Court: Clause 15
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Intra-Court Appeal Against Review Order as Not Maintainable — Review Order Cannot Be Challenged When Original Writ Petition Order Has Become Final
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Recovery Proceedings Against Timber Purchasers for Fire-Destroyed Goods. Property in Timber Not Passed to Purchasers Under Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Hence No Liability Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.