LexRADHEY SHYAM & ANOTHER versus CHHABI NATH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D [2009] 6 $.C.R. 236 RADHEY SHYAM & ANOTHER v. CHHABI NATH & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] CONSTITUTION bF IND/A, 1950: Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Whether decisions of civil court arising out of disputes between private parties are subject to jurisdiction of writ court under Article 226 - Matter referred to larger Bench. The instant apPiel was filed challenging a decision of the High Court whereby it, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfered with the proceedings pending before the civil court in a suit for , injunction between private parties. The question for E consideration before the Court was: Whether private individuals are amenable to the jurisdiction of writ court in connection with the private disputes relating to property, possession and title etc. between them. F · Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the case of Mirajkar*, a nine-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court held that certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of infer[or courts of civil jurisdiction. In view of the principle laid down by this G Court, a writ court cannot intervene in a dispute over ... property rights between private individuals. Remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a remedy in public law. [Para 12 , 13 and 20] [245-B; 242- B; 242-G]. 236 .H - .. > RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. v. CHHABI NATH & ORS. 237 · ·, *Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others v. State of A Maharashtra 1966 SCR 744 = A.l.R. 1967 SC 1(V54 C 1), Shri Soha Lal v. Union of India and Another 1957 SCR 738 = AIR 1957 SC 529; Mohd. lkram Hussain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others 1964 SCR 86 = AIR 1964 SC 1625; Mohd. Hanif v. The State of Assam 1969 (2) SCC 782; B Basappa v. Nagappa 1955 (1) SCR 250; Hindustan Steel - Limited, Rourke/a v. Smt. Kalyani Banerjee and Others 1973 ( 3 ) SCR 1 = 1973 (1) SCC 273; State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh AIR 19~2 SC 1018; Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria 1992 ( 3 ) SCR 904 = AIR 1993 SC 1226; c Prasanna Kumar Roy Karrnakar v. State of West Bengal and others 1 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 912 = 996 (3) SCC 403 and P.R.Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dhannanda Theertha Padar and others 2006 (2) SCR 1163 = 2006 (4) SCC 501, relied on. 1.2. In Rupa Ashok Hurra**the Constitution Bench did not take any view which is contrary to the views expressed in Mirajkar. On the other hand, the ratio in Mirajkar was referred to with respect and was relied on D , in Rupa Ashok Hurra. Nowhere even any whisper of a E divergence from the ratio in Mirajkarwas expressed. [Para 26] **Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another (2002) 4 SCC · 388 and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others v. State F of Maharashtra - AIR 1967 SC 1 (V 54 C 1), relied on. '- . ' 1.3 .. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 vests the High Courts with the power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and · G courts within the bounds of their authority. Under Article · 227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has occasioned. Such power, H 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R. A however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law. [Para 29] [248-E] 1.4. The legal proposition laid down in Surya Dev Rai* that judicial orders passed by a civil court can be 8 examined and then corrected/reversed by the writ Court under Article 226 in exercise of its power under a writ of certiorari, is contrary to the ratio in Mirajkarwhich has not been overruled in Rupa Ashok Hurra. In the circumstances, the matter may be placed before the C Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench, to consider the correctness or otherwise of the law laid down in Surya Dev Rai. D E F G H Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2003 (6) sec 675, referred to. Case Law Reference: 1957 SCR 738 1964 SCR 86 1969 (2) sec 182 1955 (1) SCR 250 1973 ( 3 ) SCR 1 AIR 1992 SC 1018 relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on relied on 1992 ( 3 ) SCR 904 relied on 1996 ( 3 ) SCR 912 relied on 2006 (2) SCR 1163 relied on 1966 SCR 744 (2002) 4 sec 388 relied on relied on para 10 para 11 para
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.