S.Vijayan vs S.L.Puram Service Co-Operative Bank ... on 27 July, 2009
That apart, in Sooryanathan v. State of Kerala
(2004(1) KLT 383), a learned Single Judge of this Court took the
view that when the High Court, a superior court of unlimited
jurisdiction, directs consideration of matter, there is nothing
wrong in the disposal of the matter on merits, irrespective of the
dispute on its maintainability. It is also held that an order of this
Court, unless it is modified in appropriate proceedings like appeal
or review, is binding on all parties and the concept of voidness is
not at all applicable to the orders of superior courts of unlimited
jurisdiction. If the principles thus laid down in the aforesaid two
WPC 13380 & 15389/05
:17 :
judgments are applied to the case in hand, it can be seen that the
Bank, the Secretary and the Joint Registrar are bound by Ext.P28
order where the Joint Registrar was asked to consider the petition
filed under Rule 176 on merits and pass orders thereon.
Consequently, the Joint Registrar, who was bound by Ext.P28
order of this Court, could not have avoided consideration of the
issue on merits. Further, in view of the fact that Ext.P28 has
attained finality and is binding on the parties in these writ
petitions, it is also not open to the petitioner Bank to now
contend that the remedy of the Secretary was to have pursued
the proceedings not under Rule 176, but under Section 69(2)(d) of
the Act.