LexMATHAI @ JOBY versus GEORGE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 3 S.C.R. 533 MATHAI @JOBY v. GEORGE & ANR. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7105 of 2010) MARCH 19, 2010 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: A B Article 136 and 145(3) - Discretion of Supreme Court to c entertain petitions under Article 136 - Matter referred to Constitution Bench - Petition filed against the order of High Court dismissing writ petition challenging the order of trial court rejecting the application of the defendant in a suit, seeking to send the will for another expert opinion as he was 0 not satisfied with the first expert report - HELD: Prima facie such special leave petitions should not be entertained by Supreme Court - Article 136, like Article , 226, is a discretionary remedy and the Supreme Court is not bound to interfere even if there is an error of law or fact in the order E impugned before it - Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like s.96 or even s.100 CPC - Under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last court in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the High Court - The Supreme Court as the apex Court in the country was meant to deal with important issues like constitutional F questions, questions of law of general importance or where grave injustice had been done - However, the Court has been converted practically into an ordinary appellate court which was never the intention of Article 136 - The time has now come when an authoritative decision by a Constitution Bench G should lay down some broad guidelines as to when the discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution should be exercised, i.e. in what kind of cases a petition under Article 533 H ,, 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A 136 should be entertained - Since the matter involves interpretation of Article 136, it should be decided by a Constitution Bench in view of Article 145(3) of the Constitution - Let the papers of this case be laid before Hon'ble the 1 Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench, to B decide which kinds of cases should be entertained under Article 136, and/or for /aying·down some broad guidelines in this connection. [Para 4, 5, 14, 23 and 27) N. Suriyaka/a vs. A. Mohandoss & Ors. 2007 (2) C SCR 419; Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Their Employees 1959 AIR 633= 1959 (2) Suppl. SCR 136; Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs State of Kera/a & Anr. 2000 AIR 2587= 2000 (1) suppl. SCR 538; State of Bombay vs Rusy Mistry 1960 AIR 391; Municipal Board Pratabgarh vs Mmahendra Singh Chawla 1982 (3) SCC D 331; Handra Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2003 AIR 2889= 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674; Ram Saran Das & Bros. Vs CIT Calcutta 1962 AIR 1326=1962 (1) Suppl. SCR 276; Pritam Singh vs. State 1950 SCR 453; Tirupati Bafaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. E 2004 AIR 2351= 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 494; Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs. Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai & Anr. 2004AIR 1815= 2004 (1) SCR 483; Narpat Singh etc. etc. Vs Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. 2002 AIR 2036= 2002 (3) SCR 365; Ashok Nagar Welfare F Association & Anr. Vs R.K. Sharma & Ors. 2002 AIR 335=2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 662; Bihar Legal Support Society New Ode/hi vs. Chief Justice of India 1987 AIR · 38= 1987(1) SCR 295, relied on. G R.K. Jain Memorial Lecture delivered by K.K. Venugopa/ on 30.1.2010; and Article by Justice K.K. Mathew published in 1982(3) sec (Jour) 1, referred to. Case Law Reference: H 2007 (2) SCR 419 relied on para 6 MATHAI @ JOBY v. GEORGE & ANR. 535 1959 (2) Suppl. SCR 136 relied on para 8 A 2000 (1) suppl. SCR 538 relied on para 8 1960 AIR 391 relied on para 8 1982 < 3) sec 331 relied on para 8 B 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 674 relied on para 8 1962 (1) Suppl. SCR 276 relied on para 9 1950 SCR 453 relied on para 9 c 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR494 relied on para 10 2004 (1) SCR 483 relied on para 11 2002 (3) SCR 365 relied on para 12 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 662 relied·on para 13 D 1987(1) SCR 295 relied on . para 17 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 7105 E of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 9.11.2009 .of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP (C) No. 31726 of 2009. C.N. Sree Kumar for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER F 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. G 2. This special leave petition has been filed against the judgm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.