JACKY versus TINY@ ANTONY & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 85 · Decided: 09-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 5 S.CR. 85 
JACKY 
v. 
TINY@ ANTONY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4453 of 2014) 
APRIL 9, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
S.A. BOBDE JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Arts. 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Writ 
petition seeking to quash orders passed by Munsiff Court in 
a suit arising out of landlord and tenant dispute - Held: A 
petition under Art. 226 or Art. 227 can neither be entertained 
A 
B 
c 
to decide the landlord-tenant. dispute nor is it maintainable 0 
against a private individual to determine an intense dispute 
including the question whether one party has been harassing 
the other party -- It was not the case of first respondent that 
the order passed by Munsiff Court was without any jurisdiction 
or was so exercised exceeding its jurisdiction -- If a suit is not 
maintainable, it is well within the jurisdiction of High Court to 
E 
decide the same in appropriate proceedings but in no case 
power under Arts. 226 and 227 can be exercised to question 
a plaint - If first respondent was aggrieved against orders which 
were passed by courts in one or other suit against a third party 
(second respondent) and to which first respondent was not a 
party, he was not remediless and could have challenged the 
same before an appropriate forum - Impugned judgment and 
order passed by High Court is set aside - Suit. 
F 
During the pendency of two suits (O.S. No. 2881 of 
G 
2006 and O.S. No. 2180 of 201 O) filed by the first 
respondent and his mother as tenants of a shop, claiming 
permanent injunction against the landlords and the 
appellant, who claimed himself to be the purchaser of the 
85 
H 
86 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 5 S.C.R. 
A said shop, the appellant filed O.S. No. 2426 of 2010 in the 
Court of Munsiff against respondent no. 1, his mother and 
his brothers claiming absolute title over the property. It 
was the case of first respondent that the appellant filed 
another O.S. No. 1654 of 2011 in collusion with 
8 respondent no. 2, whereupon the Municipal Corporation 
(respondent no.3) issued a notice to respondent no. 2 to 
close the business in the shop in question. Respondent 
no.1 then filed Original Petition (C) No. 1792 of 2011 
praying inter alia to call for the original records of O.S. No. 
C 1654 of 2011 pending before the Munsiff Court, and to 
quash its plaint. The High Court set aside the plaint and 
further proceedings initiated on the basis of the plaint in 
the suit, quashed the order passed by the Court of 
Munsiff and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the 
appellant to be paid to respondent no. 1 writ petitioner. 
D 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
before the court was: whether the High Court while 
exercising its power under Arts. 226 and 227 of the 
Constitution of India was competent to set aside the 
E plaint? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The question whether the one or other 
order procured by the appellant against the second 
F respondent was with the intention to harass the first 
respondent is a question of fact which can be determined 
on the basis of evidence. There is no such issue framed 
nor any evidence brought on record to suggest that the 
orders, Exts. P2 and P3, were obtained by the appellant 
G against the second respondent with intention to misuse 
the same and harass the respondent no. 1. If respondent 
no. 1 was aggrieved against the orders contained in Exts. 
P2 and P3 which were passed by the courts In one or 
other suit against a third party (2nd respondent) and to 
H which respondent no. 1 was not a party, he was not 
JACKY v. TINY @ ANTONY & ORS. 
87 
remediless and could have challenged the same before A 
an appropriate forum. [para 16] [93-G-H; 94-A-B] 
1.2 A petition under Art. 226 or Art. 227 of 
Cons~itution of India can neither be entertained to decide 
the landlord-tenant dispute nor is it maintainable against 8 
a private individual to determine an intense dispute 
including the question whether one party has been 
harassing the other party. The High Court under Art. 227 
has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts 
as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise C 
the powers vested in them within the bounds of their 
authority but it was not the case of the first respondent 
that the order passed by the Munsiff Court was without 
any jurisdiction or was so exercised exceeding its 
jurisdiction. If a suit is not maintainable it was well within 
the jurisdiction of

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