RAMESH AND ANOTHER versus SETH GENDALAL MOTILAL PATNI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 06-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SETH GENDALAL MOTILAL PATNI AND 
OTHERS 
January 6, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAll, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.J 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, Art. 133-Appea/ whether lies to Supreme Court 
/rotn High Court's order in extraordinary civil jurisdiction under Art. 226 
--l'roceeding 11der Art. 226 when a 'civil procuding"-'Final order', wh•t 
C 
1$. 
In proceedings under s. 19(1) of lhe Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro-
prie1ory Righls (Esta1es, Mabals, Alienaled Lands) Act. 1950. on the ap-
plication of the appellanl, i1 was held by lhe Claims Officer 1hat the debl 
due to P, lhe first respondent, was a secured debt despile the fac1 1bat 
a decree had been passed in 
respect of the debt. The Claims Officer 
asked P to file a s1a1ement of claim under s. 22 of the Act. 
Although 
the Board of Revenue held that the Claims Officer had no Jurisdict'on 
to delermine lhc nature of debt. P, by way of caution, filed a slatement 
of clam under r. 22. 
The Claims Officer held it lo be out of time and 
discharged lhe debt. 
On appeal hy P the Commissioner held that although 
the Claims Officer had jurisdiclion to decide on the nature of the deb!, the 
debt was wrongly discharged by him as action under s. 22( 1) had not been 
taken. The appellant thereupon filed a peliti-.1n under Arts. 226 and 227 
on the ground inter a!UJ that the 
Commi~\:_oner had no jurisdiction to 
entertain anJ decide the appeal. 
·me High Court summarily dismissed 
the pctilion. 
The appellants next applied for a certificale of fitness which 
was refused. 
The appellants came to this Court by special leave and con 4 
tended 1hat the High Court had wrongly refused the cen:ficare. 
The 
quc.o;tions 1h~1t came up for 
consideration were: (i) \Vhether the petition 
under Art. 226 in the High Court was a 'civil proceeding', (2) whether 
an appeal under Art. DJ lay only in a proceeding in the exercise of the 
appellate or ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court, and not the 
C"Xtraordinary original c'vil jurisdiction under Art. 226 and (3) whelbcr 
the order of the High Court summarily dismissing the wr:t petition of the 
appellants \\·as a final order. 
HELD : (i) A proc1.....:din~ under Art. 226 for a \Vrit to bring up 
a 
proceeding for consid~ra~ion is a "civil proceeding' if the original proceed-
ing concerned civil rights. (203 GJ 
D 
E 
F 
.... 
I 
" 
( 
• 
The dichotomy between c'vil and criminal proceedings made by the 
G 
t 
civil law jurists is apparently followed in Arts. 133 and 134 and any pro-
' 
cecding affecting civil i.e. private rights, \Vhich is not criminal in nature. 
is civil. [203 El 
I 
S. A .. l. Narr.yan Row & Anr. v. Jshwar/al Bhagwandas 
& 
Anr .. 
A.LR. 1965 S.C. 1818. [1966] 1 S.C.R. 190, relied on. 
In the present '"'case the ·Claim!ii Officer purported to excrci5e a juri!i.-
diction under which he could order the discharge of a debt which means 
H 
that the order affected the civil ri.2hts of the parties. 
The C.Ommio;;sioner's 
order reversing the order of the Claims Officer also affected the same c·vil 
rights. 
The proceedings before the revenue 
authorities 
were therefore 
• • 
A 
B 
c 
) 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAMESH v. G. M. PATNI (Hidayatul/ah J.) 
19& 
civil proceedigs and those in !be High Court must also be regarded as 
of the same nature·. [203 C"E] 
(ii) It is not permissible by reference to the history of appeals to the 
Privy Council under ss. 109 and 110 of the ClVll Procedure Code to 
exclude from the scope of Art. 133 matters beard by the High Court in 
the exerci•e of extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. Article 133 uses 
the wid"'t possible language. The intention is not onll' to include all 
judgments, decrees and orders passed in the exercise of appellate .and ~rdt­
nary civil jurisdiction but other jurisct:ctions as well in which c!Vll rights 
would come up before tho High Court for decision. The drafters of the 
Constitution were aware that a new jurisdiction was be:ng conferred on. 
the High Courts under Art. 226 and that the new jurisdiction would often 
resulr in decision affecting civil i.e. private rights, and the need to pr~vide 
for appeals to this Court against such decisions must have been obv'Ous. 
The nght of appeal is thus stated in general words in Arts. 132 and 133 
and no exception not mentioned in the articles can be implied. [204 D-GJ 
(iii) A petition to the High Court invoking jurisdiction under Art. 226 
is

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