GHAN SHYAM DAS GUPTA AND ANR. versus . ANANT KUMAR SINHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 17-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GHAN SHYAM DAS GUPTA AND ANR. 
v . 
. ANANT KUMAR SINHA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 
(LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND J. S. VERMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226-Scope of -Jurisdictioll 
-£xercise of -whether justified when alternative remedy available. 
A 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order XX/, Rules 97-106- Executioll C 
of decree--Whether third party, claimant objector, entitled to remedy. 
The appellants, owners of the premises in question obtained a decree 
of eviction against the tenant, Respondent No. 7. While the' decree was 
under challenge before the High Court, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 
approached the High Court under Art.' 226 of the Constitution, claiming D 
that, being members of Joint Hindu Family, alongwith the father of 
- -t 
Respondent No. 7, they were tenants in their own right under the 
' 
. 
. 
··"' 
appellants and were not bound by the decree, si~·they were not parties 
in the eviction case. The appellants denied the claim of independent right 
of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and alleged that they had been subsequently 
inducted in the premises as sub-tenants by respondent No. 7. 
E 
The High Court held that since the claim of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 
5 was not examined and decided in the suit and the decree was passed 
-f 
against Respondent No. 7 only, they could not be evicted from the 
;>remises. 
Allowing the appeal preferred by the landlord-appellants, this 
Court, 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The remedy provided under Art. 226 is not intended to 
supersede the modes of obtaining relief before a civil court or to deny 
defences legitimately open in such actions. The jurisdiction to issue a writ 
of ceniorari is supervisory in nature and is not meant for correcting errors G 
like appellate Court. (122 E-F] 
State of Alldhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1976) 1SCR521; 
T71a11si1Jgh Nathmal & Ors. v. A. Mazid, [1964) 6 SCR 654 and M. Nailla 
Mohammed v. K.A. Natarajan & Ors., [1976) 1 SCR 102, relied on. 
H 
119 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
A 
1.2 1be Civil Procedure Code contains elaborate and exhaustive 
provisions for dealing with executability of a decree in all its aspects. The 
numerous rules of order XXI of Civil Procedure Code take care of 
different situations, providing effective remedies not only to 
judgment-debtors and decree-holders but also to claimant objectors as the 
case may be. In an exceptional· case, where- pr.ovisions are rendered· 
B incapable of giving relief to an aggrieved party i~:·adeq'uate measure and 
appropriate tiine, the answer is a regular suit in the civil court. The 
remedy under the Code is of superior judicial quality than what is 
f<. 
generally available under other statutes, and the judge, being entrusted 
exclusively with administration of justice, is expected to do better. It will 
C be, therefore, difficult to find a case where interference in writ jurisdiction 
for granting relief to a judgment-debtor or a claimant objector can be 
justified. Rules 97 to 106 of Order XXI envisage questions to be 
determined on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties and after the 
1976 Amendment, the decision has been made appealable like a decree. 
I) · [ 123C-El 
1.3 In the instant case, it was necessary to adjudicate upon the 
dispute between the parties and record a finding on the character of 
possession of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 before proceeding to consider 
E whether the decree is executable or not. against them and having not done 
so, the High Court has seriously erred in law in allowing the writ petition 
filed by them. The decision on the disputed bsue was dependent on the 
consideration of the evidenc~ to be led by the parties, and while exercising 
the writ jurisdiction,. the High Court was not expected to go into that 
·,__ 
F question and ought not to have embarked upon a decision on merits, and 
should have refused to exercise the special jurisdiction on the ground of 
G 
alternative remedy before the civil court. (122 B-D] 
· 
, CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3656 of 
1991. ·' 
. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.1988 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1695 9f 1986. 
O.P. Rana and Gi~ish Chandra fqr the Appellants. 
H 
B.D. Agarwal and R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
t 
G. S. D. GUPTA 
v. 
ANANT KUMAR (SHARMAJ.) 
121 
The Jud~ent of the Court was delivered by 
A 
' 
; -" :L ... , 
·[. 
'• 
SHARMA, J. Special leave is granted. 
_ JJ . · ·r:: 
- . 
: • 
t 
~ t~ • ; 
.j 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.