Simplified Explanation of the Judgment:
In this case, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order from a lower civil court which had denied him permission to repair an old house situated on disputed land. The impugned order was passed by the Munsif 3rd, Chapra, in Title Suit No. 178 of 1998.
However, the High Court emphasized a vital legal point: that judicial orders from civil courts cannot be challenged via a writ petition under Article 226. The Court relied heavily on a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423, which clarified that Article 226 is meant for administrative or quasi-judicial actions, and not for judicial orders from civil courts. Instead, such matters should be dealt with under Article 227, which gives High Courts the power of superintendence over subordinate courts.
The Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam expressly overruled an earlier judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003), which had allowed such challenges under Article 226. The apex court reaffirmed that civil court orders must be challenged through appeals, revisions, or by invoking Article 227, but not by treating them as writs.
The Patna High Court also noted that, in accordance with this legal clarification, its own procedural rules had been amended. Rule 6 of Chapter IIIA of the Patna High Court Rules now mandates that such petitions be filed under Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction and be labeled accordingly.
Acknowledging the petitioner’s request, the Court allowed two weeks’ time for converting the current writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition. It also directed the court registry to assist in the conversion process and to list the matter promptly, given the prolonged pendency of the case.
Implication of the Judgment:
This ruling reinforces a fundamental principle of judicial review and streamlines the procedural route for litigants. By adhering to the correct jurisdictional channel, courts ensure efficient handling of civil matters. This decision helps reduce misuse of writ jurisdiction and avoids delays caused by incorrect filings. It also aids common litigants by guiding them toward the appropriate legal remedy and preventing procedural dismissal of their claims.
Legal Issues Decided:
Whether judicial orders of civil courts can be challenged under Article 226.
Clarification of the distinct jurisdictions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Judgments Referred by Parties:
Durga Devi v. Vijay Kumar Poddar & Ors., C.R. No. 1067 of 2009, Patna High Court
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by the Court:
Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 (overruled)
Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329
Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374
Case Title:
CWJC No. 10381 of 2014
Case Number:
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10381 of 2014
Citation(s): 2024(4) PLJR
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Basant Kumar Singh for both the petitioner and the respondent
Link to the Judgment:
MTUjMTAzODEjMjAxNCMxI04=-T7pW4yKgJw4=
0 Comments