LexRADHEY SHYAM & ANR. versus CHHABI NATH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 197 RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. v. CHHABI NATH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009 etc.) FEBRUARY 26, 2015 [H.L. DATTU, CJI, A.K. SIKRI AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 -Articles 226 and 227 - Writ of certiorari - Amenability of civil court to the writ jurisdiction - Reference of matter by Division Bench of Supreme Court A B c to the present Three Judge Bench to consider the D correctness of the judgment passed in *Surya Dev Rai case which held that order of civil court was amenable to writ jurisdiction u!Art. 226 - Held: Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ of certiorari u/Art. 226 - Control of Subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is E exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or powers of superintendence u!Art. 227 - Jurisdiction u!Art. 227 is distinct from jurisdiction u!Art. 226 - *Surya Dev Rai case overruled. Answering tt~e question referred, the Court F HELD: 1. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. A writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than G judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their 197 H 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of civil court stand on different . footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate B or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression "inferior court" is not referable to judicial courts. [para 21] [232-0-G] C Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and others vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1:1966 (3) SCR 744; Rupa Ashok Hurra 20.02 (4) SCC 388; Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1621: (1963) 1 SCR 778 - followed. D T. C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa AIR 1954 SC 440 : ( 1955) 1 SCR 250; Budhan Choudhary vs. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191: (1955) 1SCR1045; Parbhani Tranport Coop. Society Ltd. vs. Regional Transport Authority AIR (1960) SC 801:(1960) 3 SCR 177; Prem Chand Garg vs. E Excise Commnr AIR 1963 SC 996: (1963) Supp. 1 SCR 885; Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat 1989 (1) SCR 509 : (1989) 1 sec 678 - relied on. 2. Despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction F uls 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 'of the Constitution remains unaffected, it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded. [para 22] [233-8-C] G Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2003 (1) SCR 567: 2003 (3) SCC 524; Waryam Singh and another vs. Amamath and another AIR 1954 SC 215:1954 SCR 565; Ouseph Mathai vs. M. Abdul Khadir 2001 (5) Suppl. H SCR 118 : 2002 (1) SCC 319; Shalini Shyam Sheffy vs. RADHEY SHYAM v. CHHABI NATH 199 Rajendra Shankar Pati! 2010 (8) SCR 836: 2010 (8) SCC A 329; Sameer Suresh Gupta vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal 2013 (9) sec 374 - relied on. Ganga Saran vs. Civil Judge AIR 1991 All 114 - referred to. B 3. The question referred are answered as follows: "(i) Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; and (ii) Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from C jurisdiction from jurisdiction under Article 226. The contrary view in *Surya Dev Rai is overruled. [para 25] [235-G-H; 236-A] *Surya Dev R'ai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2003 D (2) Suppl. SCR 290: 2003 (6) SCC 675 - overruled. Shail vs. Manoj Kumar 2004 (3) SCR 649: 2004 (4) SCC 785; Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) vs. G. V. Srinivasa M.urthy 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 931 :2005 (1) SCC 481; Salem E Advocate Bar Assn (II) vs. Union of India 2005 (1) ·Suppl. SCR 929: 2005 (6) SCC 344 '"" referred to. Case Law Reference 1966 (3) SCR 744 followed Para 13 F (1955) 1 SCR 250 relied on Para 10 (1963) 1 SCR 778 followed Para 12 (1955) 1 SCR 1045 relied on Para 13 G (1960) 3 SCR 177 relied on Para 13 (1963) Supp. 1 SCR 885 relied on Para 13 2002 (4) sec 388 followed para 14 H 200 A B c D SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1989 (1) SCR 509 2003 (1) SCR 567 AIR 1991 All 114 1954 SCR 565 reli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.