Recently, the Kerala High Court stepped in to correct what it called a clear judicial misstep, reminding that courts cannot let their own errors harm innocent parties. In a significant ruling, the Court emphasised that justice must prevail over procedural rigidity, especially when property rights are unfairly affected.
The case arose from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, where an interim order restrained alienation of a property measuring 18.95 ares. However, a portion of this property (2.43 ares) had already been lawfully purchased by third parties through a chain of registered sale deeds. Despite this, the Magistrate’s injunction order covered the entire property, including the portion belonging to the purchasers.
When the purchasers approached the Magistrate seeking modification of the order to exclude their property, the application was dismissed on the ground that the DV Act does not provide for a declaration of title, and they were asked to approach the civil court.
The Petitioners contended that they were bona fide purchasers and their property had been wrongly included in the injunction order, causing serious prejudice to their ownership rights. They argued that they were not seeking a declaration of title but merely the lifting of an erroneous restraint. On the other hand, the Magistrate had taken the view that since title disputes cannot be adjudicated under the DV Act, no relief could be granted, effectively leaving the petitioners without remedy before that forum.
The High Court strongly invoked the principle “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit” no one should suffer because of the act of the court. It observed that “No one shall be prejudiced by an act of the Court. A mistake committed by the Court cannot stand in the way of one's rightful benefit.”
The Court noted that the injunction order had unjustly affected the petitioners’ property, even though they had acquired it through valid transactions. It clarified that the Magistrate was not powerless if he had the authority to grant an injunction, he also had the power to modify or vacate it when it caused injustice.
The Court further emphasised that directing parties to approach another forum, instead of correcting an apparent mistake, defeats the very purpose of justice and prolongs hardship.
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the Magistrate’s order, and vacated the injunction to the extent of the petitioners’ 2.43 ares of property. It held that the Magistrate ought to have corrected the error instead of relegating the parties to a civil court.
Case Title: N.K. Prasannan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No.: Crl.R.P. No. 555 of 2025
Corram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
Counsel for Petitioners: S.K. Saji, Mayamol T.S., G.R. Manju, Sagith Kumar V.
Counsel for Respondents: Binu Babukuttan, Vidhu M. Unnithan, Aromalunni M.S., Ratheesh C., Hari Sankar V., Nima Meriyam Koshy, Roshan Kurian Roy
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
