Thameena v. Koch – sllr 2001 volume 3 page 091

Brief
In SUNIL CHANDRA KUMARA v. VELOO, the court addressed the extent of appellate and revisionary jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over orders of Provincial High Courts issued under Article 154 P(4) of the Constitution. The dispute centered on the validity of a quit notice under the Government Quarters Recovery of Possession Act and whether revision was a permissible remedy where an appeal was not statutorily provided. It was held that the remedy of revision remains available unless specifically prohibited by constitutional or statutory provisions, distinguishing the right to appeal from the discretionary power of revision. The holding reaffirmed the principle that revisionary jurisdiction is part of appellate power but subject to express legislative or constitutional restriction. The