SWETAMBAR STHANAKWASI JAIN SAMITI AND ANR. versus THE ALLEGED COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SRI R.J.1. COLLEGE, AGRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 14-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
! 
I 
SWETAMBAR STHANAKWASI JAIN SAMITI AND ANR. 
v. 
THE ALLEGED COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT 
SRI R.J.1. COLLEGE, AGRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India : 
A 
B 
A1ticle 226-Scope of~ivil suit pending in trial court-Inte1im and C 
miscellaneous orders passed-Held, cannot be challenged by way of wlit 
petition-High Court, in writ jwisdiction cannot convert itself into appellate 
or revisional court and inteif ere with interim/miscellaneous orders of civil 
COUit. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
S-9-Suit-Inte1im/miscellaneous orders passed-Party aggrieved by or-
ders-Held, can avail of remedy of appeal/revision but cannot challenge the 
orders by way of writ petition under A1ticle 226 of the Constitution. 
In a dispute between two rival managing committees, i.e., the appel-
lants on the one hand and respondents 1 and 2 on the other, with regard 
to recognition for administration of RJ. Inter College, Agra the education 
authorities passed orders initially recognising the scheme of administra-
tion submitted by the appellants and appellant no. 2 as Manager of the 
College, and later stopping the appellants from managing the College and 
operating the banks accounts. The appellants challenged the latter orders 
in a civil suit wherein the III Additional Civil Judge, Agra, granted an 
interim injunction in favour of the appellants. In the said suit respondent 
no. 2 filed an application for impleadment which was rejected. 
D 
E 
F 
Respondents· no. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the High Court G 
challenging the aforesaid two orders passed by the III Additional Civil 
Judge, and also prayed for quashing of the plaint. The High Court partly 
allowed the writ petition and quashed both the orders. It allowed, the 
prayer of respondent No. 2 for impleadment as a defendant in the suit and 
directed the District Judge to transfer the suit to a court other than that H 
,623 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
of III Additional Civil Judge. The High Court also allowed respondent no. 
2 to function as Manager of the College till the final orders on the 
injunction application. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court not only fell into patent error but also 
exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 
Though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu· 
tion is not confined to issuing the prerogative writs, there is a consensus of 
opinion that the High Court will not permit this extra-ordinary jurisdiction 
C to be converted into a civil court under the ordinary law. [627-J.q 
1.2. When a suit is pending between two parties the interim· and 
miscellaneous orders passed by the trial court against which the remedy of 
appeal or revision is available, cannot be challenged by way of a writ 
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Where the civil court 
D has the jurisdiction to try a suit, the High Court cannot convert itself into 
an appellate or revisional court and interfere with the interim/miscel-
laneous orders of the Civil Court. The writ jurisdiction is meant for doing 
justice between the parties where it cannot be done in any other forum. 
[627-G-H] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3368 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.94 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. 12511of1994. 
F 
A.K. Mehta, Pramod Swarup for. the Appellants. 
G 
Ms. Indira Jai Singh, Sanjay Parikh and Ajit Pudussery for the 
Respondents. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. 
Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti (the society), Petitioner No. 1 in 
the appeal herein, is a society registered under the Societies Registration 
Act. The society claims that it has established and is administering various 
H educationai institutions including Sri Ratnamuni Jain Inter College (The 
[,,(-
SWETAMBAR SIBANAKW AS! JAIN SAMITT v. ALLEGED COMMITTEE OF MANGT. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 625 
-
college) Agra. This appeal is sequel to the litigation between two rival A 
management committees, both claiming right to manage the college. 
It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the litigation going 
on between lhe parties for the last more than ten years. Suffice it to say 
that respondents 1 and 2, in the appeal herein, got a rival society, namely, B 
RMJ Educational Society (the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.