LexSH JOGENDRASINHJI VIJAYSINGHJI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2015] 6 S.C.R. 504 SH JOGENDRASINHJI VIJAYSINGHJI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 237 4 of 2015) JULY6,2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Letters Patent Appeal: Maintainability of - Held: Whether a c letters patent appeal would lie against the order passed by the Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet - The order passed by the civil court is only amenable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction u/ D Article 227 which is different from Article 226 and no.writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable - Tribunal being or not being party is not determinative of maintainability of a letters patent appeal - E Constitution of India, 1950- Arts.226 and 227. Necessary party: Court or tribunal whose order is sought to be quashed, if not arrayed as party in writ petition - Held: Writ petition can be held not maintainable if a tribunal or F authority that is required to defend the impugned order has not been arrayed as a party, as it is a necessary party - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 226 and 227. Constitution of India, 1950: Arts.226 and 227 - Scope of- G Held: Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction u/Art. 226 - An order passed by a civil court can only be assailed u/Art.227 - Once it is exclusively assailable u/Article 227, no intra-court appeal is maintainable. H Disposing of the appeals, the Court 504 SH JOGENDRASINHJI VIJAYSINGHJI v. STATE OF 505 GUJARAT & ORS. HELD: 1. An order passed by a civil court can A only be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once it is exclusively under Article 227, no intra court appeal is maintainable. [para 16) [528-G; 529-A] Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. 2015 B (3) SCALE 88 - Followed. T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Anr. AIR 1954 SC 440: 1955 SCR 250; Hari Vishnu Karnath v. Ahmad lshaque and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 233: 1955 c SCR1104; Nagender Nath Bora v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors. AIR 1958 SC 398: 1958 SCR 1240; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj AIR 1963 SC 946: 1963 SCR 1; Hamid Hassan v. D Banwarilal Roy AIR 1947 PC 90; Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1 1966 SCR744; Budan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191: 1955 SCR1045; Parbhani Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Regional E Transport Authority, Aurangabad AIR 1960 SC 801: 1960 SCR 177; Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P Allahabad AIR 1963 SC 996: 1963 Suppl. SCR 885; Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388: 2002 (2) SCR F 1006; Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678: 1989 (1) SCR 509 - relied on. Revaben Wd/o. Ambalal Motibhai and Ors. v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and Ors. 2013 (1) GLH 440; G Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1995 (1) GLH 58 - referred to. 2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and, H' 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R. A therefore, a letters patent appeal or an intra-court appeal in respect of an order passed by the Single Judge dealing with an order arising out of a proceeding from a Civil Court would not lie before the Division Bench. Maintainability of a letters patent appeal would depend B upon the pleadings in the writ petition, the nature and character of the order passed by the Single Judge, the type of directions issued regard being had to the jurisdictional perspectives in the constitutional context. Barring the civil court, from which order a writ petition C can lie only under Article 227 of the Constitution, orders from tribunals cannot always be regarded for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution. There can be orders passed by the Single Judge which 0 can be construed as an order under both the articles in a composite manner, for they can co-exist, coincide and imbricate. It would depend upon the nature, contour and character of the order and it will be the obligation of the Division Bench hearing the letters patent appeal to E discern and decide whether the order has been passed by the Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or both. The Divis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.