#Judicial Remedies

Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms that review petitions under Article 226 require a clear error apparent on the record, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent statutory remedies like appeals under Section 100 CPC. The ruling underscores the limited scope of review petitions and the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

Orissa High Court rules that executing courts under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC can restore possession to decree holders when a permanent injunction decree is violated, even if the decree does not explicitly mention possession recovery. This judgment prevents multiplicity of proceedings and ensures practical enforcement of judicial orders, directly impacting property dispute litigants.

Allahabad High Court sets a high evidentiary threshold for contempt proceedings, mandating proof beyond reasonable doubt for wilful disobedience of court orders. The ruling shields public authorities from roving inquiries and reinforces procedural safeguards under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The Kerala High Court holds that review petitions under CPC Order XLVII Rule 1 cannot reargue merits already decided; clarifies limits of 'error apparent on face of record'.