SURYA DEV RAI versus RAM CHANDER RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 07-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURYA DEV RAI 
v. 
RAM CHANDER RAI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 226 and 227--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 115(1) 
C proviso (as amended)-Amendment of section 115(1) proviso curtailing· 
revisional jurisdiction of High Court-Effect of-On the power and jurisdiction 
of High Court under Articles 226 and 227-Held: Amendment does not affect 
the jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227-0rders and 
proceedings and also interlocutory orders passed by courts subordinate to 
D High Court against which remedy of revision is excluded by amendment are 
subject to certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of High Court which is to be 
exercised where there is gross failure of justice or grave injustice and not to 
correct mere errors of fact or of law . 
Article 226-Writ of certiorari-General principles governing the 
E issuance thereof-Discussed 
Article 227-Supervisory jurisdiction-Issuance and exercise a/-
Discussed 
Articles 226 and 227--Certiorarifurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction 
F -Difference between-Discussed 
Appellant filed a suit for issuance of permanent preventive injunction 
based on title and possession over the suit property-agricultural land and 
also for ad interim injunction. Both trial court and appellate court rejected 
the prayer. Appellant then filed a petition under Article 226 of the 
G Constitution. High Court summarily dismissed the petition holding it not 
maintainable as appellant was seeking interim injunction against·private 
respondents. Hence the present appeal. The question which arose for 
consideration in this appeal was regarding the effect of amendment made 
in Section 115 of C.P.C by Act 46 of 1999 on the power and jurisdiction 
H 
290 
j 
~J 
S.D. RA! V. R.C. RAI 
291 
of High Court under Article 226 and Article 227 as against similar orders, A 
acts or proceedings of courts subordinate to High Courts, against which 
earlier the remedy of filing civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. was 
available to the person aggrieved. Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Amendment made in Section 115 of C.P.C. by Act No.46 
of 1999 cannot and does not affect the jurisdiction of High Court under B 
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in any manner. The curtailment 
of revisional jurisdiction of High Court does not take away and could not 
have taken away the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court to issue a 
writ of certiorari to a civil court nor the power of superintendence 
conferred on High Court is taken away or whittled down. The power exists, C 
untrammeled by the amendment in Section l15 ofC.P.C. and is available 
to be exercised subject to rules of self discipline and practice which are 
well settled. Furthermore, the interlocutory orders passed by the courts 
subdrdinate to the High Court against which remedy of revision has been 
excluded by CPC amendment Act are nevertheless open to challenge in 
and continue to be subject to certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of D 
High Court. (311-A, B, C; 309-E, F) 
Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad & Ors.[1991) All LJ 
159; Baby v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 310; 
Manmatha Nath Biswas v. Emperor (1932-33) 37 C.W.N. 201; L. Chandra 
Kuma; v. Union of India [1997) 3 SCC 261; Balkrishna Hari Phansalkar v. E 
Emperor AIR (1933) Born. 1; State, through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot 
Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and Ors. JT (2003) 4 SC 605 and Shiv Shakti Coop. 
Housing Society, Nagpur v. Mis. Swaraj Developers & Ors. [2003) 4 Scale 
241 - referred to. 
F 
Govind v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2003) 6 ILD 468, approved. 
2.1. Certiorari under Article 226 is issued for correcting gross errors 
of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) 
without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, 
or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits G 
of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of 
procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there 
is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. 
(311-D) 
2.2. Any authority or body of persons constituted by law or having H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A legal authority to adjudicate upon questions affecting the rights of a 
subject and enjoined with a duty to act judicially or quasi-judi

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