Tammanna S/O Dyamappa Battal vs Miss Renuka D/O Ramakrishna Reddy on 13 March, 2009

[Cites 38, Cited by 57]

Karnataka High Court

Tammanna S/O Dyamappa Battal vs Miss Renuka D/O Ramakrishna Reddy on 13 March, 2009

Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, V.G.Sabhahit, K.L.Manjunath, A.S.Bopanna, A.N.Venugopala Gowda

1 i

IN THE HIGH COURT 01-' KARNATAKA AT BANG RE
TE
DATED THIS THE 53 DAY or MARCH, 2009

PRESENT

THE I-ION'BLE MR. 9.1). DINAKARAN, CHIEF    '

AND   

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE s.R. 1§;AN?§URMA'T'     

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE \r..:_%G9pAi;A__G9jir-pA.."'  

THE HOBPBLE MR.  
THE HON'BL§:?__':Miﬁg__..1.JQHTICE;K.._'L.:VHiA1'¥a£UNATH,
THE  ECPANNA,
THE  GOWDA

wf,A. No, £5.85/'2.007' (GM--CPC}
wA. Nos..'1--95'7/2006 '('GM--CPC), 1383 /2007 (GM--CPC),
A 153.0/_2oQ7 (GM--_E'_C), 1753/2007 (GM--CPC),
A  1926/'2007'~{GM--CPC), 2143 /2007 (GM--CPC),
 ' ,107.8,»'._200".7. (GM--CPC), 1422/2007 (GM--CPC)
  '  1526/2007(GM--CPC),
 1445/2(:o7.:={GM--cPc), 884/2008 (GM--F'C)

 'W.A;._;N0.; 1585/A2007

 1."Ta.ﬁ1;1r_1a§nna,

H V  V --  S'/"0. Dyamappa Battal,



Aged 79 years, Occ: Business, "'
R/0. Ranebennur.

2. Kamalakka,
W/o. Tammanna Battal,
Aged 74 years, Occ: House Wife,
R/0. Ranebennur. '
3. Padmavathi,
W. / o. Ramanna Saukar,
Aged 72 years, Occ: house wife, T.
R/o. Midur, Taiukz Ranebennur. " '  .   
 ._ ":,A;ppe1}aI1ts

{By Sri. S.P. Shankar, Senior Adv'Q_<:at_r:°'W _4 V 
for Smt. Mamata G. Kulkarni, Advocate)  ;   

AND:  V  A 

1. Miss. Renuka,   
I)/0. Ramakrishha Redd , ,
Aged 26 years,,__Oc"c;_VS1fu.dent_,,° _  "
R/0. house No.168.8T,_  '  "
Choudeshwari Exter1sii3n,"~ _  _ ..
lst Cross, Medleri, Raneb:enn11;';' 

2. Narayana Reddyﬁ _  V.
S/,0. Han,1,q;:nanthappa._Redd}',
Aged .51 y.e'ar:s,. ogc; Retired,

R /'Q. I..a:<mi:1a1*ayana Building,

Kurid,a"'N_aiga:';« ..Bumhay--Pune Road,

 Pane-~a1"1,@« 1:2,   '

 , 341.. " VSh.-si"1fhawsva,V"

'W",'Q§ --La-Xniappa Sawakar,

Add '4"_" Aged Muderi Chawal

VdNear...Head Post Office,

A A ' ' *  Ranebennur. ...Respondents

This writ appeai is ﬁled U / S. 10 (iv) (3) 85 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, challenging the order passed by' the learned Single Judge dated 01.06.2007 in W.P.No.656/2005. W.A. NO.: 1957/2006 BETWEEN:

Sri. Karigowda, Aged about 46 years, 8/ 0. Donne Karigowda, R/0. Halagere Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk 85 District.

,..ip,,eiiant By sri V. Lakshminarayana, Sr. Adv, go; fg Sri. Nagaiah, Advocate) * AND:

1. Sri. Muddaiah, -. _.

S/0. Muddegowda, 1-Ma_fo'r._.iI1,Age,. V V R/0. PanchegowcianaD"o'ddiV'i11ag'e,_ " _ "

Keragodu Hobli, ~ Taluk 85 District Mgizidyéig '

2. Sri. NC. Chainegovvda, S/o.Cha1uve Gowda, ,_ Major in Age, Chetan 1nd,_us*trie~s', Plot No.35, KA1DB Ifidtistriai Area, " .....

A 0' ,0 _ ...Respondents Sateesha, Adv. for R1, . _$ri. -N:are'ndra Gowda, Advocate for R2) ,_/ K , 0 ..av"

. V _ tAg_4ed~v34 years, This writ appeai is ﬁled U/S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2006 in W.P.No.1 1794/2006. W.A.N0.: 1383/2007:

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Yashoda, W/0. Late Mallappa, Aged about 35 years, R / 0. Rathnagiri Road, Oppato I).C.C. Bank, Chiekmangalure Sri. 1\/Eallappa, S/0. M. Nanjapa Shetty, V Since deceased by his L.Rs

2. Sri. C.M. Surnanth, _ ' S/o. Late Mailapa, ] Aged about 28 years, . "

3. Sri. C.M. Deekshith."--

S/0. Late Mallapagf' 'f2; " .9 Aged about 226 years,-"_._ 'V . .

Both 2'/0. Rathnagiri .Ro.ad.., A Opp. To D.C.C.=.Bank,'=. " V' Chickmagaiur. " V 81:1 s.P4..3%aa;;xar.~-.$eee:a1or' Adv. for . Appeﬁaﬂts (By Advocate) AND: A A A A .'»,S.1fi. MES.

Aged about 39 years, Residing at No. 16, Shivajyothi, Puttalingaiah Road, Padmanabha Nagar, Bangalore--70.

At present No.-4101, Harwin Circie Apt 1905, Glenallen State VA ZIP, 23060 -- 0000.

This writ appeal is ﬂied [}"/S. 4 of;"*the..i_'Karriataka Court Act praying to set aside the o20'de~r_V passed by ijiearried M Single Judge dated 17.07.2007 in w.P./2007f W.A. No.: 1753/2007 A A BETWEEN: ii

1. Raghavendra Aged 59 years, ' '-- ' S/0. Benkaji Ku1:k%.1ri3_ii,;'l,;« 0 A Occ: BuSiI1eS'S.""=. "1::,- "

2. Bhimaraya B'e_nkaji'Ku1kfarni,' 0' __ S/0. Benkaji Ku,_1karni;. A' _ "

Aged 56 years, Oee: Service, R/0. 1\/Eissigon Compourid'iArea, Bijapur.

3. K1¢ishr1ajiVi'Beri3%;ajiiKulkarni, S / 0., Ber1i<aji" Kulkarni, Aged 054-ye a1'e,y"'Oycc:.i' -Service, i4v..i:KeshaV Benkaj i Kuikarni, _ _/0; V Benkaj.i Kulkarni, 'Aged veyears-~, Occ: Business, WgA.No;E ates/2007:

A . A 'Araeemddin Hussein saheb Chaman shaikh, Frazer Town, Banga1ore~5.

4. Mr. Syed Abdul Basheer, 8/ 0. Late Syed Abdul Razack, Aged about 45 years, C/o. No.6, MDM Road, Frazer Town, BangaIore--560 005 A A 2. i;_ 'A (By M / S. S.Z. Khureshi, Associates, Advocates}. V b E AND:

1. Smt. I-Iameedunnissa Begurrz, _ W/o. Yakoob Shariff, A « Aged about 60 years, R./0. N0~.~}~ ' _ v_ ' "

Scott Lane, 773* Divisior1~,. Mé;cka'r:;Road» Crossg' Bangalore--560 OOI,

2. Sri. Syed Abdul H--afee25,_:.V _ A -- «- S/ o. Syed AbduiRa::ack';1:

Aged about £31 years,'-"R/o'.weN'oe,_i'0.7,-- f Shivaramaiah Layout, =.'3'¢*'.3V Cr_o'ss, Kalyan Nagar Post,» HF3R"La;,ro"ut,' Bangaiore-~43. " V T " A. : Respondents (By .Irs13aEd:Abmed, Advocate for R--1) This ﬂied U/ S. 4 of the Karnataka I-Iigh .3tCourt Act" praying 'tdset aside the order passed by the Iearned S":;r1g1e_Judge"---dat_ed -10.08.20? in W.P.No.15221/2006.

" . _ Aged"5"7 years,

10. 3,11- 11 Gousrnoddin Khomirasaheb Jahangir, Aged 58 years, Rest ~ dd --.

Mohiddin Gousa Maktumsab Ismail, Magadum, Aged 41 years, Rest ---- do -

Rasul Maktumsab Ismail Magadum, Major, Rest ---- do ~ Ameerkhan R. Mokashi, Aged 56 years, Rest --- do -

Jubeda Fakturddin Aged 56 years, ' Rest ~ do --

Aged 59 years, ' Rest ~ do --- "

Babiw/o. R' Meharunnisag, % . .' W / o. A1}.a11ddin"ismai1'---- Magadum, v'...Major.»»'-ﬁg A' *.VRest, ¥do W / 0*. ,Kutubu--djd,ir2; Ismail --- Megadurn Aged 51.. Y'?.'~'11"S~2 Rest ---- do} 12:», 'Restﬁ do-

V'.d.bdﬁIm.unaf Kutubuddin Ismail "Magad_u.rn, Aged 57 years, :f'V$32__.5r1 $'4Pl{Sha;:kaif;:; Sr. Adv. £02: 12

13. Saradarpasha Maktumsab Ismail Magadum, Aged 57 years, Rest - do »

14. Teharunnisa, W /o. Jivauddin Ismail Magadurn, Aged 57 years, Rest -- do -

15. Sayeed Maktumsab Ismail -» Magadurn' Aged 57 years, R' ' Rest ~-- do ~.

H Respondents This Writ appeal is med U/s,t._4fl'e.£ the f.:<e.rnete,:;ee: High Court Act praying to set ortleri; learned Single Judge dated 1 1. 10.9303: Vilizv-\?{.I3*.41'\;'--:>__;":'*9V8'f3 /;2_oQ:?. W.A.1\IO: 1078/'2O0'2':iV:" "

BETWEEN: V M V R. Smt. Saraswati, W/o. Koujalagi, Aged" 4.8Ayea;_1*S, Agricui'ture, R / 0.' 'Fu1Vagaddi.,' ' 'I&'aI'1ik.:v Gokak. ' : Appellant S15. R.G."'--Hegg:le; Advocate) . A R4 R ' ' Ramachandra Dulloli, " "»Asedu4'5 years, V' V . Qec: «Agrliculture, 13 R/ 0. Fulagaddi, Talukz Gokak.

: Respondent This writ appeal is filed U/ S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed by the learned. Single Judge dated 04.05.2007 in W.P.No.7379/2007. W.A. NO: 1422/2007 BETWEEN:

Srnt. Tarabai, W/ o. Leharchand Band, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Household work, Residing at Mayuri Extension, ' Nagashettykoppa, Hubli. . ' it - it : Appellant (By M/S. Lexplexus; _v.oeate__s) AND: - iiii M 4' it

1. M/ S. Eureka'*._Builder_s,' 0 _ A partnership 'c.onc:pern..haVing'its"

Regd. Office at Mohak Chainbers, Station Road, _ " V' 07 0 Duly represe2jitezi..«--by its .:l_0pi'--i\{Ianaging Partner "Sr1'.~-- VShyarn Rarriasa Jartaghar, '[_''Aged: 50 years, "Om: 1?armer, ' Eureka Builders, 00 R]'o...Mohak Chambers, 14 Station Road, Hubli.

. Shri. Syam Rarnasa Jartarghar, Aged 50 years, Occ: Partner, M / S. Eureka Builders R/o. Mohak Chambers, Station Road, I-Iubli. .

Shri. Prakash Premchand Kothari Aged 50 years, Oco: Partner, M /S. Eureka Builders, R/o. Mohak Chambers, Station Road, Hubli.

Shri. Mohan Ramasa Jartarghar, Aged 45 years, Ooc: Partner, , A » M/S. Eureka Bui1ders,_ _ ' R/o. Mohak Chambers, 1 Station Road, Hubﬁ, 51*' . Shri. Kashinath ~ S M/ S. Eureka Bui1dervs,__ R/0. Mohak (Z'.hambers,~.,"~., Station Road, I-Iubli. ' V' Niranjan, Aged"50,,y¥33arsj§:,;0ccE:.,Partrie'r',""

Shri. I-I.R. Prahlad, Aged 50 :,Ze"ars_,_ Oeo: Partrier,' M',/_ S. 'E1rre1<r.a "Bui1de_rs, R / 5., Mohak C-harzrbers, Station Road,~vHub1ijV' V .

;rS1r:r_i. Mohan }§u',r1.f;:;§pa Wali, ieAged,_50 years,=Oco: Partner, H " M".,,/'S, Eureka "Builders, .g QSR,/,_o;~.iMohkak Chambers, " Station Road, Hubii. \ 5 .._V 'Z 3 M 15

8. Shri. 1-I.R. Rajgopal, Aged 50 years, Occ: Partner, M / S. Eureka Builders, R/0. Mohak Chambers, Station Road, Hubli.

9. Shri. Vishwanath Ramasa Jartaghar, Aged 55 years, Occ: Partner, M/ S. Eureka Builders, R/o. Mohak Chambers, Station Road, Hubli. - _ --

. V V. " ".._..Respondents (By Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, Advoca£e~,fot,'R}1 'ie, is}, This writ appeaii: v'tHe"'Karnataka High Court Act praying 1:?) se4te_aside. 5'rd¢: nassed by the learned Single Judge datedev2§:;'{)8.;2i2)07 'W.P;Nc~;«1'842 /2007. W.A. NO: 1525/2097: V V' BETWEEN: "

B.L. Vnﬁnanth A '--- .

S / 0. BR. Lakshminaia,_si1j;maiah, {Aged aboi2t"6.Q«yiears,__ '~ "

Resi'ding at '7__Lokamb"a. Nilaya", Near (iovernrizent Model Sericulture Grainage, 2.43:-,aiur,..,Tumktz,r;'s72 105.

j--    Vani, Advocate}

 



'AND:

Naga._ :Nanj1i1iti1atV'Raje Urs, Raje Urs, 16 AND:

C.S. Basavaraju, S/o. Shankarappa, Aged about 63 years, Residing at Door No. I534--A, 19* Cross, M.G. Road, K.R. Extension, Tumkur : Respo_:idet1t VA This Writ appeai is filed U/S. érei the High Court Act praying to set aside "the o3:'dei* by the Vlearned Single Judge dated 20.07.2007 iii \,v.Pe.N'e.ji097312007. W.A. No: 1445/2007; 3;

BETWEEN: 1 Ammanamma, "" 711* -

W/0. RY. Javaijegowdagg Aged about 46 y'ears, ' V R/at Kalidasa Road, _ H.D. Kote, Taluk, V -_ Mysore District--570 O0-1'. "

gy gr: x.aksiii;nina.rayana';«age.» Adv. for :Appe11ant { Sri. " «Go-vindraj'; .. Advocate) S/ 0.. Late K.S;~- ySu.'bramanya Raje Urs,

-. .fAged~ about years, ."_'._S/o.-_L'ate"K§S. Subramanya Raje Urs, about 34 years, 17

3. Krishnarajammanni, W/0. Late K.S. Subramanya Raje Urs, Aged about 63 years,

4. Tripura Sundarammanni, D/0. Late K.S. Subramanya Raje Urs, Aged about 32 years,

5. Nagarathanamrnani, d/o. Late K.S. Subramanya Raje Urs.,__ Aged about 30 years, All are r/at Koilegodana Ha}-}izF'ost),..,_ Kasaba Hobli, H.D. Kote Ta3L_1_1§, --_ "~- ' Mysore District i , ._ _ ' {Respondents This writ appeal: VitHe""Karnataka High Court Act praying to passed by the learned Single Judge darted :,s;wo7.E2oo7 "N.P.No;--1'O744/2007.

"LA. No: 334/2963 V BETWEEN: V H _ ._ .

Sri. S.--t.epher}.~» '§Vi1vsonVD' . S / 0.' John D'So1i.'é;a. Aged about 37 years, S.J. C0ttage;.Th--u1dam_, ..

'Post Kirmigoli, ' Taluk, 'Dakvshina ' I{a:'1r1 adj f_ A : Appellant (By-:iSri,VChar1d.1~tanath Ariga, Advocate) V " +.Srrit.. Veena Pereira, o. --.Step'hen Wilson D' Souza, 20 II -~ WHY THE LARGER BENCH:

2.1. The genesis of the question under reference to this Larger Bench is traced as hereunder:

2.2. The Karnataka High Court Act, * calied as the "Mysore High Court the State of Karnataka to rnaige pro'visiLo--ri"'for reiguiati.-fig the business and the exercise in the State of Karnataka in of justice and to provide for its A 2.3. It to:':r:eferitheistatement of objects and reasons for High Court Act for better apprec-iationii4of_:the.Tie,ig;i-stative intention behind the said

2. ' i """ "

z=sq~.g OBJECTS AND REASONS Viigéict Si éonsequent upon the abolition of the 'High Couitof the former State of Mysore by Section 50 4A_of?j'*"'-..States Reorganization Act, I 956, and the it estatﬂtsihment of a new High Court for the new State, 'Sections 52, 54 and 57 of that Act govern the it _"'\ rat:

\ at ' g_ M", {any proiiisiion that rndy"be made with respect to the having p,ower_"_to make such provision. ihenactnrientviof a iawby the State Legislature so that the High Court can exercise the same powers "'arid__jurisdiction in respect of the whole of the new 21 jurisdiction, practice and procedure and the powers of judges, of the new High Court. Under Section 52, the High Court has, in respect of the diﬂerent areas i.~ it State, such original, appeilate or other which under the laws in force before" 13'. in , 1956, the High Courts of Bomb'a,y,';'.i,i$tydé~r¢:b};d,' Madras and Mysore had in theareas'co'ncern'ed.iV..jBy virtue of Section 54, the provisionis't.he Court Act, 1884 are applicakiteiiipirijptrespect the practice and procedure in of the new State, and byibirtue 7, the provisions of_ 2:.-_c.-'i _areV"'.app'licable in respect of Single Judges and matters anci11ar'y:V--to'- the those powers. Under Section 69.' States.'"'--.i{'eorganization Act, the provisions referred' to 'abo'.veTwiil have effect subject to Hiq'h.V.iiCourt_:"byr. Legislature or other authority T Gouemment of India have suggested the 22 State. Accordingly the Bill has been prepared in consultation with the High Court. The---- recommendations of the Law Commission have been considered.

Provision has been made. ;'the'i:'_';Si'l'lV'_' specifying the cases to be hec;rd_-i~!i1i,1;1 like!' it Judge and by a Bench of Irilresipect of decisions of a Single Judg__ef'in the exercise? of original jurisdiction,' yappeaf' Bench of two Judges has been all Criminal Appeal.s.@r'e Bench of two Judges, and this delay in the disposal of ~ has therefore been criminal appeals from judgments it in sentence of death, imprisonment-.._ for life'or'.imprisonment for a period _.yexceed%ing seven years, is passed against any by a Single Judge. By virtue of 'Cl_aiuse' Appeals will be heard by a Single Judgelfilt 'iisiconsidered necessary to make specific provision "irelaiting to disposal of urgent work of the Court during vacation. Clause 12 makes provision for this."

[emphasis supplied] 24 Government in the matter. The High Court expressed the view that it was not desirable to provide that these matte'rTs"»be heard by a Single Judge. Hence, in the CouI'1c.il.'..._l__tl5;er amendment was moved to restore the original viz.,"

that these matters be heard by a other Judges.

2.4.4. The Bili was later on pgislisga, as reeornrneriided by the Council. C. A C 2.5. We had copies of the original between the Government and it regard. When the views of the {High High Court was not in favour of the pro'pose.divia.*_ner1dn;l€ent viz., providing the hearing of:_.the' untier_....Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution_ ---by a Single Judge with an appeal to a of two and the request of the High Court to above iamendment was considered by the then ..Ci1;ii_ef Minister as well as the Minister for Law and 25 Parliamentary Affairs and other Hon'ble Ministers, in the light of the recommendation of the Law Commission report; and as they agreed to approve the same, the matter was then before the Cabinet headed by the then Chief getting the approval of the Cabinet, the C' before the Council and the Bill becarne C that the applications under Articl=els-..226,ll'2_2l'}' aHdvi"i2:2$__:(V)f i:hie7 Constitution of India shall be -a Single_dudge and providing an appeal before tl'1e:t"B_,e'ncl2ji'eonsisting of two other Judges.

2.6. The -reasons for the above amendment reads" _ "11mericlirt,5j rats:-ii';l41e,,,§ft,,:it9i73.»mAt present all applications underf) of article 226 and articles 227iand' Qéetufthe Constitution of India V' -areiclea,lt with bglja"Bench of two Judges. In the _ aof Kerala, Madras, Nagpur, Atzttha5a.};t;i»g_o'ge;t'ht, Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh and g Boritbay, iszileh applications are dealt with by a "".Single'.Jn5dge and a right of appeal is given to the 2'7 appeal to the aggrieved party whose right to approach the Supreme Court is very much restricted in view of the Constitution (Thirtieth) Amendment.

Hence the Bill.

. 2 V' 2.7. Thus, clause (xii) was iriserted to"Seet.ion,: 9;.;'w'h~ieh deals with other powers of the Sing1e---Ltta'dge-.oAand "Cia'L1s.e'§ (ivwa) was inserted to Section 10 of theehﬁet, with other powers of a Bench of_ .. extracted hereunder for ready'Vrefere':tc_e:: 4&9. Othep... E! powers of the High Cf()u3'tV'Vir'Lf:'rj¢Ea,tfC(tv"'EO' the following matters shall be exerctsted Judge, provided that the Judge _ before" 'whore. matter is posted for 'Vhearirt'ji~ may.._ a adjou'm"V it for being heard and hdeterhminjed"byV'a:Bench of two Judges:-- V V' (xii) e;v.<ere_ise of powers under,- clause_ 1(1) of Article 225 of the Constitution _ 51' " offrtdia except where such power relates to ' the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas T '"*'cor;pus; and or refer.._th,e to 'VaV"_33ench, remained unamended and the read as hei'e.Lii.1der:

(12) Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India. _ (emphasis supp1ied)ﬂ_iV.

10. Other powers of bench of two judges. -- The powers of the High Court in relatioiriito'the-«foZEoz,£)ing matters shall be exercised by a BencPi"ofti;Uo'judges;?-it ' (iv-a)- an appeal from any '-vo'r£ginaiw.. judgment,"

order, or decree passed by a"'~.Single 'Judge }in exercise of the powers underVArc'Iaiise""(1.) of Hrticle 226, Article 227 and Aiftiaeie of the Constitution oflndia. ..

H supplied) 2.8. iS:es;tions to the issue nameiy, Sectioriiili, appeal from the decisions of a Court, and Section 8, which dealswith'Lrexfisioriaijiiirisdiction and prescribes the p0uférsv--oi .Si1i1'g1e"-JgudgieV'to"tiispose of revision cases himself

--« 4., Ajaeeals from decisions of a Single ' ..f_w Judge of the High Court.--- 'appeal from a judgment, decree, order "-or sentence passed by a Single Judge in 29 the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court under this Act or under any law for the time being in force, shall lie to and be heard by a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court.

{emphasis supp..Lec:i.]V V

8. Powers of Single Judge disposei'of revision cases himself or refertthel ~same"'to' A ~ (1 Bench.-------- _ A (1) Any Judge of the High Coianfsittiny.

shall have power to hegr and 'dispose of icivilv and criminal revision 'cc;ses_Vi§i::ve2'c:es2§¢i.sie of the revisional jurisdictionv» mg-:st*e§l', _ _ ; ''.High Court under loewifor ltifrieoibeing in force, exciépt.;:44"colses. 'quashing of orderswof l A '5 Provided that of such revisional jurisdictioln-gin' proceedings of any court" Single Judge shall not :'irngo'ose' sentence of death or imprisonment for V' life Vor.:V'*-.senten_t:e of imprisonment exceeding seven years'.

(2) 'decision or order of a Single Judge it V' V. in'lcaj.ses under subsection (1) shall be ﬁnal: 30

Provided that such Judge may, if he thinks ﬁt, instead of disposing of any case as aforesaid refer such case to a Bench of two Judges hearing and disposal."

[emphasisstltipihiedfi 4' V 2.9. Having traced the originV__v'o.f theA';t>'owersﬂceirtferred on the Single Judge and Division 9(xii) and 10 (iv--a) of the 'Ptc_t:respectively, by an Amendment Act of iizvith that of the Single Judge. vﬁeniehyiconferred under Sections 8 now let us refer to the backdropii"-.of" ¥an'iendments brought to Sections IOQA -1. Code of Civil Procedure (he1jei;*1.;':_1AfteT§L_:i*ei:f:tI'€,d xasv-..'(3I'C' for short), which had driven us to the risisute" reference.

Arn..ong'other amendments proposed in the CPC, the byeec (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976, proposed amendment inserting Section 100A and amending S .seet§§e'nt--1i 5 C90.

,w.w€*x 'i "

barred} heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court; and it C

(b) appeal from any writ, direction or order made on an application under article 226 'or.' _ the Constitution by a Single Judge" a 'High _V 3.2.4. Even though Sectioii lO:4C}vA;".V_ as * (Amendment) Act 46 of 1999, prohibited an the order of the Single Judge:'pass'ediv_inlyviiit.ggpetitionuxunder Articles 226 and 227 of the clause ('0) in Section 100A cPc,{thg_;:a1d1s.¢1auéei(h)f'¢ie"sse.c;ﬁon 100A CPC had been omitted 22 of 2002 to the Karnataka; _a_ccording1y Section 100A was modified as'i1e19eunder':w _ ﬁle ﬁii?fr'ier..__iappeal in certain cases.-

anything contained in any Letters V Patent5f_o.r Court or in any instrument having force of in any other law for the time being in .i°_j.,.._fo'rce, where; any appeal from an original or appellate order is heard and decided, by a Single a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from judgment and decree of such Single Judge." W._M,;...

:2 < ' 34 3.3.1. Section 13.5 CFC, as amended by Act 104 of 1976, reads hereunder:

"s.1 15. Revision.--- (1) The High Court may call record of any case which has been decided Court subordinate to such High Court'; and in _ appeal lies thereto, and if such slyborolinateti4.Co.ar"t'-llj..,,ct' appears ---

(a) to have exercised a junsdiclion notmtested bylaw; or he he he '

(b) to have failed to ::'a_:"j'ari$t1iction so vested; or

(c) to have. thl-3._«_e.x;erci5evof jurisdiction illegally or':u:it_h material «.irfregu}',ar*ity, the High Court. a_.':>"Vl1C"l'L.O.?'d€I' in the case as it thinks ﬁt: A l' V 1 1?rovideg:H;hat V_Hi1gh"'Court shall not, under this "':Seetien_l 13ary%.or reiiérse any order made, or any order can issue, in the course of a suit or other except where-

._(a) the order; if it had been made in favour of the '..ff_:§ar'ty cipplying for revision, would have ﬁnally . elieposed of the suit or other proceedings, or 35 (la) The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom;'"-._ it was made.

(2) The High Court shall not, under this sect:iovn,V.:

vary or reverse any decree or orderagainst which"

an appeal lies either to the High"Cou:r't:'or»to.

Court subordinate thereto.

Explanation.-- In this section "any case which has been des:ided«:?' i;:clu,des.tany order made, or any order decidingjiian in the course of a suit:.orcothetf proceeding, " V S "~~.[eii1ohasis supplied] 3.3.2. thetiVAC:PC"VVii4i'l'1f.':]i'1'€:it.}3'1CI'}.ii) Act 104 of 1976, the pre--amended Section :ii(eis"refiﬁmbered as Section 115(1) and a proviso was eidded' to the said sub~Section and Section 1 15(2) iiirasvjtvéisoliiizserted. lllll H S .'_}."1i:.i3~lT"i;S;C].iCtiOI'1 exercised by the High Court "1:;:iiij;*1t'e1j"Sectior'i.V"1i'1~15 CPC is called 'revisional jurisdiction'. As 1'/:£»1i1:"i'*~x.c \.

\ 36 per Section 115, amended by CFC (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976, the powers of the High Court could only be

(a) in cases where no appeal lies;

(b) in cases which are subordinate to the HighVCourt;i'and-- (C) in cases where such subordiriate Ciourtcappeared to have: i it it (1) exercised a jurisdiction r1o:._iiVe_sted in it by law';or so 2

(ii) faiiedito e§§e.rcise 9. jurisdictionso Vested; or

(iii) acted '::in;f_the' wits jurisdiction illegalijy orifwi th .rr1-ateriafrirregularity.

Except in these 'three: Court had no power to interfere in theiurevvipsionavli 'aitirisdiction. The revisionai jur«i'sdictioif13¥.of the Hi§gh'vC.ourt is so restricted under Section

115.iC3F'Ci,i is provided only when there is excess, failure o1*VWrongfui_ exercise of jurisdiction, apparent on the . cfythe recvoiid, but not otherwise. A V3_,3:._§4.ii"A.'E2xercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section could, therefore, be invoked only when some ' V .__V 9 "thinks _fit:-----

38 Section (3) was inserted. The effect of the amendment brought in by CPC (Amendment) Act 46 of 1999, is revision would lie only against such . deciding an issue in the suit or other disposed of.

3.3.7. Section 115 cpc, (Amendment) Act 46 of effect from 1.7.2002 reads as under:

"115. Revision' * 1 _ M iiii H (1) The High__V(3iourt-- iaéigy rem of any case which has subordinate to such H[gh">CC;m-f ..-no appeal lies thereto, and if such appears --~ (Q) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested " iirifit by law, or to exercise a jurisdiction so '---.i'vested,A'or (cl toﬁhiaive acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material ' 9" «, « irregularity, High Court may make such order in the case as it " ._'_Seci:'on,~i2ary or reverse any order made, or any order 39 Provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, orﬁv.

any order deciding an issue, in the course ofqd suit or other proceeding, except where the__ofrder,:"

if it had been made in favourm"of'«the applying for revision, would;"1',Vh}i_ioe disposed of the suit or otherjnroceedinys. A '[e.'_a1pl'u1asis' ~si;spp1ié;;1] (2) The High Court shallnot, u1.'ider vth_is,ﬁs--ection, my or reverse any decree or Vorder7'agains,t...ahich an appeal lies either to the :High:fCour't__or"_to.:"a'ny Court subordinate there'to."§_-" 2., ~ _ (3) A revision as 'stay of suit or other proceed'ing"j;before-- the"Couri"eJc"cept where such suit or other p:*oceedin,y'is' 'stayed by the High Court.

Explanation-:__In V this"'sectio-.n, the expression, "any case which has been decided" includes any order wade, any Qrdervdeeiding an issue, in the course of in suit or other proceeding. "

proviso to Section 115(1) CPC CPCi'"{Am.e{i'1c1ii1ent) Act 46 of 1999, reads as hereunder:

that the High Court shall not, under this 40 deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or othergspg proceeding, except where ---- _ {a} the order, if it had been made in favour in 2 the party applying for revision, would V I ﬁnally disposed of the suit ,_ oythermg"

proceedings; or

(b) the order, if allowed V>toVg4'*s_tand, .__would occasion a failure of ju_st'ic,e=._or cause irreparable injury the ,gpal'ty».,,'b1g_ainst whom it was made." _ 3.3.9. The afllrestsls p;m=ig_s'5 'Beennsubstituted by the CPC (Amendment)\::,A$;t 'O«fui.:99;9:;"é1sv'§aereunder:

"Provided~,that the',Higiiz.v'Co_urt; shall not, under this Section, vary or reuerse order made, or any order deciding.' issue, the course of a suit or fother'-procyeedving, except where the order, if it had V'E3eenV"mad,e"~ Tfauour of the party applying for reui:sio--n,' ﬁnally disposed of the suit or V V other plroceed-irigs. "

Hi"u3.;£§."1O,_According1y, the amendment brought in by CPC L' Act 46 of 1999, has further restricted the 41 jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The effectsg.---of amendment brought in to Section 115 CPC, are two ..

(i) firstly, it prescribes a condition in_i jurisdiction of the High Court is a case decided by su'bordin'a_te'-- Couri:5 :

which no appeal lies to the

(ii) secondly, it sets out in which the jurisdiction may' be I , _ g ;_i V revisionary power of under Section 115 which has been decided" by 'Court"su'b.oi*dinate to High Court.

3.3.11. Theiiforn1.eriiconcernisiwith the power of the High Co1._11't.to e record.s_.of Courts subordinate to it by the High.Co'L1rt to existence of conditions precedent, :{on.,the basis of Wiiich such exercise of jurisdiction under .Se_cti4on_ I 15 depends, and in the absence of existence of V' coizditions, there is no authority or jurisdiction to call 43 3.4.1. In order to get over the restriction brought in to Section 115 CPC, supervisory powers of the High Court. Article 227 of the Constitution of India are invoked..i= 2". ii"

3.42. It is a settled proposition jurisdiction of the High Court iimier sgction 1.1.3 lci°c°. is ' separate and distinct from that of thei.powersVcont'ei'red;§on the High Court under Articie "India and the one cannot be identified supervisory jurisdiction conferred Constitution of India is different1froriii'V.the'-- jurisdiction of the High Court under power of the High Court under Sectioniil---l:S(i1v)' to the power of superintentience iiconferredi 'under Article 227 of the CoristitutiorhvAAs.such, the restriction imposed on the powers theiiitiigh,ict5titt._utiiti}ei~ Section 115 cpc, in View of the cpc Vv'7'{Amendme4itt) $46 of 1999, would in no way curtail the «:superi.risor_§;j powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the itwe-"scgh«stiti;tioh of India. 44 3.5. The supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227, with reference to the restrictions imposed.._ revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court under ~ CPC got settled in the decision of the of SURYA DEV RA! v. RAM CHANDESRV [2003{6) sec 675], holding that iheijigipowefi' of.th.ei}j1ighi'"Court under Articles 226 and 22791" th;e""Constitution"ofindia is always in addition to the reirisi_ona1. of the High Court under words, the curtailment of rei_?isioi'ia1" High Court under Section A..does:§Vi'_iiaWay the constitutional"

jurisdiction ofthe. Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.) 'i'he"'i3ower of the High Court under and "" "of Constitution thus remains _ untramri1eied..::byiu"the.V:iamendment made to Section 115 CPC; the sa__rne_visiitherefore, available, subject to the Rules of Cit's:e'li3dii'scip1inevand practice. Thus, despite the restrictions under Section 115 CFC, the interlocutory orders, rrladedri the course of a suit or other proceeding which are 45 not ﬁnally disposed of, came to be challenged, invoking "the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article.._ the Constitution of India.

3.6. While so, the orders of the under Article 227 of the Constitution are"-aip'pealed--"--before the it Division Bench under Section 4 of Court Act react with Sections 9(xii)' as. whether such an appeal filed the Single Judge under of India is maintainable,V_c_arnie.V ihefore this Court in the case of OF.' i§ALPANA THEATRE v.

B.S. KAR. 426], hereinafter referred toast the 'KAL¥i_?l§tNAﬁ'FHEATRE' case.

"A Bench of this Court, in KALPANA i'*'iTI~§EAT1?£__l'lcase .(su_pira), while considering the maintainability ~ --off.~Vari'appeal"un~der Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 'theforder of the Single Judge made in his supervisory 48 of Karnataka High Court Act and Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of__the Writ Proceedings Rules of the Karnataka High with Article 11(sa) to Schedule II to the Kernataka * and Suit Valuations Act, 1958, were not nu Division Bench in KALPANA THEATRE'. iaseiiisupgs _ 3.9. In this regard, it is apt to 'extract RiJ11esV'2V(1),.':'26Wand 39 of the Writ Proceedings the«.Karnetad<a High Court as hereunder: H 2 2 "2.{1) Every 'and/ or Article 227 designated as am: "Petitio'ii' sliallwine in Form No.1

26. _Every-«appeaV.l ﬁledfrom an order passed by a a v.»«.i..§ingle a writ petition shall be as 'writ appeals'.

of the High Court of Karridtaka Rules, etc.- The provisions of V Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the °"«...Rules made by the High Court of Karriataka 2' under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and the provisions of 52 basis of various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. It is again worth while to that in all those matters no provision analogous' the provisions as incorporated in the Act Rules was made. On the basis_of_the cited before it, the Division Bench Al passed in petitions filed under Article . Constitution were not in ofthe" original jurisdiction of the Court,~.__no againstlsuchvlan order was rnaintainablel' 'wel'i~,;g'.ai{elfailed already, writ petitions filed under'Articles_22l5'Varid;v of the Constitution, 'j_"oj"l'l.'Karnataka are specifically Court under Rules jurisdiction. The Arnendrnent' was enacted for a definite purpoise the scope of appellate powersof this in"-telrins of the report of the Law and 'in------~the Statement of Objects and 27, Reasons, it was stated:

it all applications under clause (1) of-art-icle,226 and articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India are dealt with by a * A. l5fenci't of two Judges. In the High Courts of 2' .,Kérala, Madras, Nagpur, Allahabad, Delhi, 2 Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh and Bombay, such applications are dealt with by a Single Judge " and a right of appeal is given to the C It appears.tha.t'while deciding the Kalpana Theatre's 'case, supra, the Division Bench did not take note of if it earlier judgment of this Court in State of g 4'_pI__{la'rn'ataka and others v. H. Krishnappa {IL}? 1975 1015) wherein it was held.' 53 aggrieved party and such appeals are dealt with by a Bench of two Judges. The Law , Ministers' Conference held in 195 7 and 1960 _ _ was also of the view that such applications---.'_' A should be dealt with by a Single Judge with S. a right of appeal to a Bench of two Judge_'s__ The Law Commission in its »l%"'ourteenthI." V Report Vol. I] while considering thegiuestion= V has stated with particular "reference" ._to. 2 S' ' Madras that such a procedure has yieldle-:fl.4_v_ _ satisfactory results. 'the principles": H governing the disposal of Writ Petitionsand E connected matters ha"v'e* bleezn no'w'"

sufficiently clariﬁed [by them lldersisions of different High Courts and the Suprerne Court, it is considered desira:ble'~ _to_ empower a Single Judge'to"_'deal with' applic'a.tionf.s under clause (1). "of (except where the prayer is for°'t.he issueflofla. ,wri't_ in the nature of halqeasgco1muVs)_,_'and "applications under articlesll22?'._anE'l'228_'of the""Constitution of India with ar:'g'ht'qf'appeal to a Bench of two Judges. It 73; :also--~._&ico.n'sidered that this procedure" may result'_;~ in more expeditious disposal such". applications, and also provide a right__of appeal to the aggrieved A A party-."swhose right" to approach the Supreme » _'Court is '«:ze7y much restricted in view of the V Constitution. (thirtieth) Amendment." 55 be having inherent lack of jurisdiction or contravening the constitutional provisions. Even in Kalpana T heatre's case, supra, the Division Bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme ~ in Umaji Keshao Meshram and Others Radhikabai and Another, AIR 1986. .E"2'7'2,--:f;v;rn'd .4 observed:

"...In Umciji's case, supr'a-,._ it is» also heldﬁf»... that the relief granted'V"=bVy» the"l.e_o;'med Single Judge clearly indicated_ that he" was exercising jurisdiction junde-r._Article 225 and not under" 'Articleif :.22?f ._'of_ the Constitution. The afo_resoi{:l o'bse_ifvq.7iions in U maji 's ease, s:ujjra,~. .Rdtnugiri District Central :_'VC<}}eoper&_tive '" Bank" Limited U. DinkarK?;:.shintith «lglldtiqe Others, 1 993 Supp.(1_) --ii_S?'CC"' cgg V Sushilabai La3cminciryani:::A. smudiiyar' Others 12. Nzfholchand V3vWagha;jibhci Shaha and Others co,se~:'VI.993l'Suj3p.(1) SCC 11 case, clearly' iindicateA":ohicil1'factors would help in deciding w_he.ther~l' the petition is under Article 226 'or under Article 227 of the 'Constitution. ' ..... .. *

--VIf~$lect»ion_ 4 of the Act is examined in the:"'light_of the aforesaid decisions of . 'the 'jfiiipreme Court it becomes "'««..ap;;varent that Section 4 does not protfide an appeal against the _ judgment or order passed by a Single " Vghtdge of this Court in a petition under We 57""?

'xi 2 .... __ ..

57 provisions of law and judgments as noted herein above, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench in KALPANA THEATRE's__;'case_,.--.i..:

(supra), was not justified in holdingnthat appeal against an order passed 'i'2y_t;he_:

Judge in a proceeding ar'isingi"au':a'?_'_'oj*v' 7-if filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution.;w_as maintainable. The scopeiiﬁectiorel "_l4'Vof21'the Act in the context.b_f_Aother "law and particularly the by amendment 1 this .::a;dn1ittedly wider than of the other '-refe'lfred to or relied upon v,'by' Benclz in KALPANA THEA;£'RE'$ ' in our opinion, the law laid». 'I'HEATRE's case, supra, l)eing..:contra'ryivto the settled position of ,...,lau}._'iis;y_Aliable toilbeover ruled. We hold that an 'appe.a-l__'agvai'nst an order passed by a Single }'J.il"dge proceeding arising out of a petition ﬁled. under' Articles 226 , 227 and 228 of the V'-».Constitli=tion of India is maintainable. The Cf;-efeirlence is answered accordingly." [emphasis supplied] <e;""""ii~ "e V the Constitution of;.--india.

F3') interim order of status quo and subsequently vacated the same; and against which an appeal was preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. 3.13.2. The Full Bench consisting of five ~ referring to UMAJE case (supra), drew it the power under Articies 226 and 227 India, and held that while the pt5c¢§t1ighgs" tihdtftétttieiett 2225 are in exercise of original juri.sdictionJo'f the Iiigh"Cotirt, the proceedings under Article 22% of of India are in exercise of superxriso1*j.r Ehection 4 of the Karriataka High in the context of original or si1perviis'ti,tty.i:i:J;{i;V1'risidictioniwanﬂiintra--court appeal is provided Single Judge passed in exercise under Articie 226 of the ca'ft:India,ahuf"r1ot against the order passed in the exercise" jurisdiction under Article 227 of 60 3.13.3. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in UMAJI case as hereunder:

"A proceeding under Article 226 original proceeding and when it concerns__"ciui.l° rights, it is an original civil, pr¢¢¢¢a:ng;

Consequently where a petition:_fﬁ:led»._iuﬁ-¢lé;é{~-.,,,.

Article 226 of the Constitution isxaccordingiwto the Rules of a particular Court C a Single Judge, an :intragcour_t- appeal 'willvllie from that judgment if:,}5uch_ appeal is provided in the char~te_r~. of' Court, whether sue'h'"iCliarter€gbe I;etters....l5atent or a statute. ..:."' is not an original H intra~court appeal does notllie judgment of a Single Judge of th"e..j3'o'mbV}ay High Court given in a . .«'''petitidn* under 227 by a reason of such "expressly barred by Clause 15 of the"}';etter'$;_ Patent of that High Court.

fa .Vi};':'?L';t-riges came to 'eonclusionr F11 Where the facts justify a party in ﬁling an application either under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the party chooses to ﬁle his application under both these ar'ticles','::"'~t.

in fairness and justice to such party order not to deprive him of the valuabl£%Trig.ht"e:"' A of appeal the Court out__...to_ treat'-:'_':theV'_'..V application as being made uindeprigéﬂrtichilei and if in deciding the pmatter, Pan thelﬁhnaz i order the Court gives ancillary-. which may pertainnto th.ie"--rrT_ght:§ of appeal under Clause vliibfithe ijatent, where the substantial__ part of to be appealed againtsttfss .. V

-' 'V ' supplied] 3.13.<;.:.t:n"I*2tfIftlihf5;§t'R (sttprei), it is thus held that when the right right, but not an inherent tight, Vcetnnot be availed otherwise. Ac'¢'e1'dingi,_§:'§' the decision of the Full Bench in e4as_e"}"eferred to supra, the Full Bench of five 63

(iv) that the law laid down in KALPANA THEATRE case is the correct law and that the decision of Full Bentchin the case of RITZ HOTELS is not correct V' the law laid down by the Divisioii settch V THEATRE case. j A 3.13.5. In PATTEDAR Cas€:w"v-PadiilalfajtV his concurring but separate reason citing the decision in SADHANA XLVINSURANCE co. LTD. {zoos A1R.scw iaiiwfremedy for filing a revision beforeiithe" 'Section 115 of CPC has been under Article 226 of the Constitutiioniitttnder Articie 227; and that being the positionuof theréiiiiicannot be any appeal against thepii.o't*deri'e".of :,.j'1;he" ..pSingieiiiiiiJi1dge passed in exercise of his supertrisoryi j't1i:ri.sciic"tio.n, because the right of appeal being a iﬂiistatutoryi Section 4 of the Karnatakaﬂigh Court

-..the be exercised only as provided under the u"~.;"«.statute~_i'.e.--=against the order passed in original jurisdiction, 64 but not against the order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India._:

3.14.1. The maintainability of an appeal 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act Single Judge passed in exercise of,poWeri'under ArtiTc1iAe'227"*.o1"w the Constitution again carne up WSRI VISHNU GANAPATHI NAIK4, .xtrA:~IAG1-§.iiitiE"i\IT or NWKRTC [ILR 2006 AKAR.vAA.l.Sﬁ-3];V._itogr VISHNU GANAPATHI aggrieved by an award of the in KID NO.403 of 2003 dated 1.3'-t7i§:j2-Dﬂéiﬁ"tiledia__writHoetition in No.48999 of 2004 before J:Artic1es 226 and 227 of Co"1f1Vstituti,0_t1i ioflndiia; the Cingle Judge by his order dated 27i.7,_V2.ojosi Vre_;eeted"~the writ petition and confirmed the award Tribunal. The correctness or i'7io'thc=rwiseih44ofx thehorder of the Single Judge dated 27.7.2005 i..jafope-agledi by the workman under Section 4 of the .2" ' 2 2 i_Kar*nata§1§aiAHigh Court Act. 65 3.14.2. In SR1 VISHNU GANAPATHI NAIK case: a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us _ J) is a party, of course, following the reasons th2:it:---- ~ with the Full Bench consisting of fivevjudges iereieieeig it case, heid that:

(i) where the petitions are undertfirviticies 225 and 227 of the'~.ConsititutionVj"of India; -the Court has to examine _t'he'made in the petition a_n'd__the,'reiief ezaijnedC":rie§:eiin as to whether it tithe': Court to exercise under Article 226:"or"toe..exercise a"supe"rvisory power under Artici-e 22 7:Cori'stitu.tion;

(ii) if the challenge only to the correctness ori.otherwise "o-fitheaward, then the petitioner is 'wot)t'iousigii"invoking the powers of this Court of the Constitution, because i cause--has not been initiated for the first time in .;Court; and 'j[iii,.I addition to the correctness of the award, the petitioner were to challenge the vires of any C ~ of the provision of the Industrial isputes Act or 67 KARNATAKA AND OTHERS V. RAMASWAMY 85 OTHERS (hereinafter referred to as 'RAMASWAMY case' for which was disposed of on 1.7.2006.

3.15.2. The RAMASWAMY case afose::Aagai«nstA dated 12.02.2007 of the Single Judge passed in Pétitiotni ii Nos.382'72«~88278 of 1998, disposedV'Vloei_V'pon_V12.'2..V.2't3C;'7, irgherein the Single Judge under bonstitution quashed the orders of and the Karnataka Appellate of grant of 5 acres of land to V 3.15.3. The :Divisio'r1..:iBenc.1'i RAMASWAMY case, while setting aside the o::derVof._ Sirigle Judge and remanding the matter toe-'..the;p_.lI:)eputyAACornrnissioner with a direction to hold proper: eaquirg. giving all reasonable opportunity to the iimparties icolncerneldg. ':held that the appeal would lie under 4 of" Karnataka High Court Act against the order Singie_»Jfudge passed in exercise of the powerunder Article distinguished the judgment of the Full Bench ,_r*"""' 68 consisting of five judges in PATTEDAR case, on the ground that the decision of the Apex Court in SURYA DEV RAM CHANDER RAI 8:. OTHERS [AIR 2003 ' short, SURYA DEV RA} case, followirigmtheédeci.sio'n._of'-thelng 2 Constitution Bench in the case of L. UNION OF INDIA AND OTEERSCC 'lfor short, CHANDRAKUMAR casiexwas.i1'1olti_folloWed.itA CE 3.15.4. The Division case, placed reliance on Court in CHANDRAKUMAl2:llcTasel;"' that the judicial review conferred on the High Court conferred under Article 227:.areA . ll'hie-i}:iloii\7er under Article 227 is wider the one conferred Article 226 of the Constitution, . becausel tghe' p.ow.erl ofsuperintendence is not subject to those l'v.__tec'hnicalities of nrocedure or traditional fetters which are to A "'b'e".ifound in certiorari jurisdiction. The above ratio laid down case was followed in the case of SURYA 70 3.16. In View of the decision dated 1.7.2006 made in RAMASWAMY case, several writ appeals came to against the order of the Single Judge made . of the Constitution and the maintaina_bi].ity of u"

again came up for consideration bei7oref"'iai'10fh.e'I' Bench, both are parties to this deieﬁddn end VENUGOPALAGOWDA, JJ), and the.«b'iVision Eench order dated 7.11.2007 made in wdteppeet of 2007 and connected matters, etC;«j:.V[_ib'~iz. V. VASANTH [hereiiiafter referred to as RAMACHANDRA5 'sARAswATt:1"idetcejer st~idt£)], after referring to the point in question referred to above, viz. (i) KALPANA teeeweeeeee, ii'-{iii)'":RITZ HOTELS Case, (iii) SR1 VI'S'}ViN{1V(3(ANi4Ki°A'1?ijiY N}5diKiVcase, (iv) RAMASWAMY case, {V} SURYA (vi) CHANDRAKUMAR case, raised VgasV'serious'"~._doL;bt.ias to whether the Division Bench, While 'ipe'e'si§dg.e the eyder dated 1st Juzy 2006, in RAMASWAMY case, the binding nature of precedent laid down in _ case, could take an exception to the law laid down 71 in PATTEDAR case, in View of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in:

{i}

(ii) CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BO§*I.RA COMMUNITY v. STATE or MAHARASHTRA' [AIR 2005 so 7521;

STATE 01:' BIHAR v. KALLII{A_ Ktiﬁii"[}$';i»a"2003'es_V K "

sc 2443};

PRADEP c§1ANbRA " PRAMOD CI~IANDR5£ '1§AT1fi'A§IK::V[1'\;1:R..2-Q03} SQC296}; BHAB.-AiT4'_ ﬁjﬁraqrrztjm,;eiQRr§O§A'rIoN LTD. v. MUMBgA1'..'V;'§Hfi'AMfK Q 'sAN':mA [2001 (4) sec and referred' t_1'ie_mawtterA't0"'thLe'Chief Justice with a request to cor1sti;t'ute a 1a.arger'1Ber1ch, based on the binding nature of Judges in PATTEDAR case as to the"':néii_;1taiﬁa10i1iVty"bf the intra--court appeal under Section V4, in View aft ﬁections 9(xii) and 10(iv--a) of the Karnataka have-beerl referred to us to answer:

and framed the following questions which "g 72 Whether the ﬁnding recorded by the Division___ Bench in Writ Appeal No.1777 of 2001 judgment dated 1.7.2006 holding intra--court appeal as maintainable, contrary to the decision of:

Bench in Vishnu Ganapathil:<NaiF:.'.s 'A 2006 KAR. 1863] requires in the light of the pronouncement._of»the Bench in Gumshanth Pa.tteda'r's"-case? ' In view of the lnad:e.AAtoV'iiS1ections 9 and 10 of 'Act, i.e. in terms _ ...;;:,F 2 Act] . of 1973, inserting 0(iv--a) whether Section 4 of 'the Actfis the order passed by a Singleﬁudae. e_xe':*cise of the power under " 'Article 227 er under Articles 226 and 227 of the in Coinstiifation oindia?

law laid down in Gurushanth "-«.,_Pattec3a~r's case requires reconsideration in z2iet_i5~ of pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme V "Court in Surya Dev Rai's case? /NE 73 3.17. Following suit, another Division Bench, by order dated 18.12.2007 in a batch of Writ Appeals (Writ Appeals No.195'7 of 2006 and connected matters ~-- KARIGOWDA V. MUDDAIAH AND OTHERS), for short, KARIGOWDA"~.cfa.se._,vv referred identical questions to a Larger Bench, as hei*eur1htie'r-: ~

1. Whether an appeal from an passed by or. Single Judge .the* powers under Article 22 7iiof~~the Coristituiiioriqiies.

to «:1 Bench consisting of Jitdges H' of 'the High Court, in view of~the.eontaiheri in Sections 4 and 10(ii;--e)': of-{he __£§feri}::iitqka High Court AC1', iz';.hSichedule II to the Coiixrgtii-1:V7z'ee,sV Valuation Act, 1958.? i' A

2. Whether' the Full Bench in Gurushhahch 'Pdt't~eda'f'~'--si"' 'case (ILR 2005 KAR. 2503)greqi1ires recohsiéeration? 'the Fuli Bench of seven Judges (Larger 74 III --- THE QUESTION UNDER REFERENCE REFRAMED COMPREHENSIVELY: 1 4.1. The questions that are referred to be _ the Larger Bench are consoiidated as detetﬁled be--1*uw§i:~., 4.2 As per the order dated_.'7_.11.h2IJAt37. in 1078 of 2007 and connected matte1*s:(SARASWATEH of cases), the following questions were to Larger Bench:

1. Whether 1'r.eco_rcfied lﬁgijhhhhthe Division Bench of 2001 by ju:rfgmentE.f'V'.,d§1t€;?i t:jV1«;.t17.20o'6"E holding that the intrawcourt. mtzintainable, which is _ controryhh toVV'theA._Vde:cIision of another Division Berrch int" Ganapathi Naik's case [ILR V requires the reconsideration of the pronouncement of the Full .' A E"Bench'tiin..Gurushanth Pattedar's case?

Inytew of the amendment made to Sections 9 V_ "and 10 of the Karnataka High Court Act, ie in 'terms of Karnataka Act No.12 of 1973, '75 an intra--court appeal under Section 4 of 'the Act' is maintainable, on the order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of the power under.-.__ Article 227 or under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution offndia? _ __

3. Whether the law laid down in Pattedar's case requires l'eico"rlside'ratioin'ltin view of pronouncement of the'-Ho_:n'i5le Suprelne». it-ft Court in Surya Dev Rai's case?

4.3. As per the order dated .i'n'W_ri1;,i§Appea1 1957 of 2006 and connected'artiatters}V:K.A};{I_GO1NDA case, the following questions \lsleife..refe;i*red' ti'1etiVi'La19gelr' Bench:

1. Whether an or judgment passed""l2_y exercise of the pctwersx of the Constitution liesto of two other Judges of view of the provisions t vdqovntainedni "ir:.__tSections 4 and 10(iv--a} of the High Court Act, 1961 and Article irtn~.S~chedule II to the Karnataka Court '' .__"'Fees.a2n.d:;Suits Valuation Act, 1958?' 76

2. Whether the decision of the Fuli Bench Gurushanth Pattedar's case (ILR 2005 2503) requires reconsideration?

5.1. The Division Bench, by order dated .4 'w 2007, in SARASWATHI batch of cases, Zplacingi' decisions of the Apex Court rehit_i'ng to'jLidiciaIV:'idisciepliideii decorum, no less than a 2ega1_ propri_et3':7,,__ir1_»;v

3) DR. VIJAY LAXMI sAm:§ovs..;A0AD:sN {2001(2) sec 247] - A

ii) BHARATH PE;TF€Q:LEU:M §C*f5R'Pt§'ié.ATi.CiN LTD. v. MUMBAI SHARMiK.'$AN:QH;A {2'00A1(4) sec 448]

iii) PRADIP,CHAiNv!f51§P;;:A.PARiJAiw}.'--PRAi\/{OD CHANDRA PATNAIK {AI_R"2QQV2'?VSC429_€;] % A

iv) STATE O'F,V_BIHAR_ivi.'KiALi;II(:A KUER [AIR 2003 sc 2443} auviV2_*.A.I BOuA'RD_....v OF DAWOODI BOHRA c0M'1~.4UiNA1TY.t0_ AND ANOTHER v. STATE 01? '-V.NI!\.H1\.R1'xSI-ITRA. AND ANOTHER [AIR 2005 sc V'.;-incidentaliy serious doubts as to Whether the Division A in.RAMA.SWAMY case, in spite of the binding nature of pret.:edeint made by the Bench consisting of five Judges in other 'finally disposed of and thereby attracted Vfgnder Sectiontl CPC, Whereas the order under appeal in case arose out of an award passed by the I '78 judgment dated 1.7.2006 holding that the intra- court appeal as rnaintainable, which is contrary to the decision of another Division Bench in__._ Vishnu Ganapathi Naik's case [ILR 2006 1863] requires the reconsideration in the lightiopf the pronouncement of the Full ii Gurushanth Pattedar's case?

5.3.1. In this connection, it relev_a1nt_i.to whether the decision of the Divisiofiitiiﬁench in case and the decision of of five Judges in PAT'l'EDARVcase, of the Full Bench consisting ELS case was reversed, all arise: stance s?

5.3.2. The under Section 4 of the Karnataka came up before the Full Bench consisting of" Judaes in PATTEDAR case, arose against order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or are not lijdentical, but apparently differ. While SR1 4Hlvi1s}{1§zU GANAEATHI NAIK case and RAMASWAMY case arose 'iagainstAlythepawards, orders or proceedings passed by quasi- 79 Deputy Commissioner and the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the matter of grant of five acres of land, while the order under appeal in the case of KALPl5&N.A T HEATRE arose out of an award passed by the and the order under appeal in SR1 VISHNU GANA_P:}3EFVH:l_.:lllAlK case also arose out of an award I Tribunal, Hubli in KID No. 403 of 2093. l 5.3.3. We have seen that the o.1°lt'l1:s:'odeEcisions in: l l V dd (1) KALPANA_fI'«:~§:§§:.lATRilEHl 'V V"

(ii) RITZ Ho*:'l1:":1,s';iyica;sleg_;p_l* r l

(iii) PATTEDARf:"cié;s:eV,_'l "V

(iv) SRi--,_VI NAIK case, (V) RAM}\Sl?\:*_A ylc:';é.sey_;'l V (vi) cases, and lM1}.VA"KAaioo"v.DA cgé, /"2 1 """":*~w T \ 3 ' E R3 the decision of another Division Bench in Vishnu Ganapathi Naik's case [ILR 2006 KAR. 1863] requires the reconsideration in the light of the pronouncement of the Full Bench in Gurushanths Pattedar's case?"

5.3.8. The remaining questions 2 and 3 SARASWATI-II batch of cases by orde1f.:'c1'a.*.e'd ll 2007 and questions No.1 and 2 referred to December 2007 in KARIGOWDA'--._:c'a.se, iby ldift'erejnt Division Benches, with th.s__ riskt""o--iiis_:'-r'e'petition;-Arend as hereunder:

"2. In view of Sections 9 and 10 of Higlh Court Act, i.e. in terrnsof 2 1973, inserting clauses l_9('x'ii)(t;)ii'?.'arid'*J'Q{iu--a) whether an intra-- courtﬁappeall 4 of 'the Act' is maintainable, 'on'*t_he..._uorder passed by a Single Judge. in exercise of the power under Article 227 Articles 226 and 227 of the India? I

3. .'i§l%'hethers:'j_'the law laid down in Gurushanth Pattédar's case requires reconsideration in view ' r""'.:»r-

84 of pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai's case?"

Questions referred as per the order dated 18.12.2OO"Z.:.__J"

"1. Whether an appeal from an order or judgment in passed by a Single Judge in"'eJcercfise_:.l0f:

powers under Article 227 of Constitution'.liesh,17C.A to a Bench consisting of 'two other High Court, in view of thel"p.rouisions. coiitained in Sections 4 and e}"'O[_iu--a}lo] lifarnatalka Court Act, 1 961 and Schedule II to the Karnatalga Court. 'Valuation Act, 1953?

2. Whether' Full Bench in GuVrusha.e}flr»;h ii3¢;tze¢al;r.'s it case' (ILR 2005 KAR.

25 requires' -.reco4nsideration?"

5.3.9. _ These 'c§ueStiio-ns'~~-"nrevoive on the question of miaintainallalilityi of anllllappeal under Section 4 of the High Court "order passed by the Single Judge under :t,VlJ"A»rtic1e of.tlh:eV. Constitution of India, arising out of an 'order;-».deciding1~an issue in the course of a suit or other passed by any court subordinate to the High 87 227 of the Constitution of India, exercising the power of superintendence, the same is construed to be a_n.._m.5d~:r passed in exercise of original jurisdiction . under Section 4 of the Karnataka IfI;igh__CoLj1rt'A'c:t_;:v. Section 4 of the Karnataka High Cou__rt"Act only bars appeal against the order in exercise of his appe1l.ate. but nothing else. inviting our atte13_tion.:"iViVto that transpired the Government with refere1ic.61iAi.A:t'(:igih'the, ects and reasons for the Amevndrnent to the Karnataka High Court Act .ithein._serVt'io.ni of Sections 9(xii) and 10(iv--a) thC:g_'i{aErnat_akaAHigh--~Court Act , referred to above, it is .Vo.o'ntiendoe'd4;tiia't right to file an appeal under Section 4 of High Court Act is the statutory right the" same cannot be denied by characterizing the oi-*t_ier "under appeal as one passed in exercise of vsupérvisory jurisdiction;

it 227 and §fJfit_31ppealS in respect of matters for which no provision is made in the Rules. Article 11(sa) to 88

(iv) in order to strengthen the above argument, our attention was also drawn to Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of the___Writ Proceedings Rules of Karnataka High Court framed Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of S' to Article 11(sa) to Schedule H toithe. it Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958.i"Rtti,pe"2(1)'ptevitieleQi're£:. filing writ petition under Articlev._2"26 and'/or'--.Artic1:e'V'227 of "

the Constitution of for ﬁling appeal against ..thef'Sing1e Judge in the writ for the application of the of Karnataka Rules, 1959, High Court of Karnataka under the Fees and Suits Valuation Act, of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Article 226 and/or Article II to the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits 2 'Valuation Act, 1958 prescribes one hundred rupees court /,, seal 89 fee for an appeal petition to the High Court from an original judgment, decree or order of a Single the High Court made in exercise of the clause (1) of Article 226, Article of.: S"

the Constitution of India. It is, theAre'fo--re',l cont_--ende«d"

in order to give effect to the lpi*.oi?isionv. refherrefd appeal would lie under ¥'Se'ctio1i""4*. Karnata'i~;a High Court Act; as otherwise' referred to above including would be rendered 2 A V' "

That for insertion of Section Act 104 of 1976 and the arnendzrrientii'bro'ughtlTto Section 100A CPC by the 46liolfS1999 and the further amendment IOOA CPC by Amendment Act 22 of A 2002;"««..de1,et'ing' clause (b) therein referred to above, are vegbrotigiht to our attention to substantiate their c_o1'1te'i1tior1 that by removal of clause (b) which bars an 92

8. Per contra, we had the beneﬁt of the argument of Mr. Aravind Kumar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, against the maintainability of appeal in issue as hereunder":_i"'--Vv

(i) Inviting our attention to the recommendation-of it Commission proposing amendment""to* «Sectiohn 1; 3,5': CPCKH by Amendment Act 104 of (i) insertingiifproviso to Sub--section (1) of Section as the objects and reasons for the {Amendment} Act 46 of 1999V,ii§zi.é;1§;er' .

(i) for in proviso to Section llamas: CPS: e

(ii) rid,/atidition 'o'f_e's1ib:--y'se:c1:~io.n (3) to Section 115 cpc.

it is contended .?no."-appeal would lie under Section 4 iof-the'e'--I&aifi1at'aIg<a Higihwtlourt Act against the order of the siaég1giJudg¢ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises against an order deciding an issue the course of a suit or other proceeding, not finally *s_uch e petitions under Article 227 of the i'~r_Consti_tution tuioulal lie and not under Article 226 of the 'civil suit» refused to grant temporary injunction and an against refusal to grant injunction has been fejezcteci, and a State enactment has barred the 'remedy of filing revision under Section I 15 of CPC, in 93 legislative intention for amending Section 115 CPC. Mr. Aravind Kumar also invited our attention to the reasons that weighed with Justice PADMARAJ in case, which reads hereunder:

"...in terms of Section--4 of the«gKa:rn'ata'Fc.C_i' Court Act, an appeal is provided wiayilof intra--§Cou_rft appeal against the orderof Single-Juaige in the exercise of its origirialgairld_not in the exercise of its supervisor; line case of SADHANA Lomr' ivA:%IoNAL' co.

LTD. (2003: rﬂepiorted in the three Judge Bench Court has clearly observeci that rerriedy for ﬁling a Revision before 115 of CPC has been expressly barre-d Abylthe State enactment, only in as a matter of illustration, it has been »..obserz2e'ci-- 'therein that where a trial Court in a r';?'/ -V\ 1: 1: .. 2, 94 such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of Constitution. Thus where the State legislaturemfias':7. barred a remedy of ﬁling a revision petition befoi'e High Court under Section 115 of; CPC, riollipetition under Article 226 of the Constitution ui-oulduiie' for .2 reason that a mere wrong decision 'without anything more is not enough to attract jiiiiisdictivon .of.,th__e it Court under Article 226o'f..the Colnstitutiogn.

the position of law, appeal against the order of the:.learried'-Si»nglev_ passed in the exercise llpsupieriiisiorg' jurisa--iction. It may be stated a statutory right and where provided the right of appeal orily~.'passed by the learned Single JudgeiofthisiVCfourt"«in"its original jurisdiction, it is to beheld n.ora;5pétiz lies against the order of "*th_e Singleidu-dge passed in the exercise of "'_super3_2Visory.i jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Consti"tiiticri}~v.,__ 'i.i';Neither the rules nor the forms prescri_bed'bufthe High Court will prevail over Section» N) ._of the "Act which provides for an intra--Court appeal orilgliagainst the order of the learned Single Judge . pas-sedi in the exercise of its original jurisdiction and it the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. That [,,c..-»/g?

(ii) 95 being so, I ﬁnd that the law laid down by the Fufl Bench of this Court in the case of M/ s. Ritz Hotefsﬂ (Mysore) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and reported in 1996(7) Kar.L.J. 600 is not correet:i..a'ncz;:~L:.,.

proper. "

Regarding the deletion of clause (b:}»._to by CPC (Amendment) Act 22 of Mr;

contends that the deletion_ of Section 100A CPC referred to above, contrary to either proviso' tofﬁhection 1 15(3) CPC; Right to ¢ojnfa~rsc»diaiun.laer Section l0(iv--a) of the Karnataka against an order passed by a Single Judge 9(xii} of the Act as well as _.,the cor5res_pondirig'*--~proyjsions of Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of l"t_hev:VWrit -P__rolce_e'di.ngs Rules of the Karnataka High Court readdvvithilAﬁicliellll(sa) to Schedule II of the Karnataka Court eels:ar14d Suits Valuation Act, 1958 can be invoked tiling an appeal against the orders which are not ____"attracted by Section 115 CPC; and 96

(iv) in any event, Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court "Act provides for an appeal only against the order pas_sed-«.hy_vv the Single Judge in exercise of his original .

the High Court, but not against theorders nu Single Judge exercising his supervisory ur:_der'i-:

Article 227 of the Constitution» of1ndia.' " V v. CONSIDERATION. ANAL§_sIs 9.1. The question reframed comprehensively, of an appeal under Section 4 Act against the order of Article 227 of the Constitution lndtiai arising against an order deciding an issue: iibyivany Court subordinate to the ini:'pthe*..course of a suit or other proceedings not finaily" .di's_pos'eriislofi.'V:'attracting Section 115 CFC, which is Sgoirerned E}; Sveictioin 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

§if2.V]:.i"V.{'ith the risk of repetition, we extract Section 115 97 9.2.2. Section 115 CPC after the CPC (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976:

"S.115. Revision.-- {1} The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided' by any Court subordinate to such High Court in which no appeal lies thereto, and if subordinate Court appears --- V

(a) to have exercised a jurisdictior:_Vnot-vested' irfiti by law; or

(b) to have failed to ve;ceircise--. jurisydiiction so vested; or

(c) to have its jurisdiction illegally .oVr~Vu)ith;:,material irr-egi.4farity, the Highv-Court "such order in the case as it thinks-fit.-it ' Provided that the._V_High Court shall not, under this Section, or reverse any order made, or any "order issue, in the course of a suit or othxzripiroceetﬁnig, except where-

(a) " order, if it had been made in favour it of the party applying for revision, would have ﬁnally disposed of the suit or other proceedings, or /V :3 l ' r E :

99

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such brder in the thinks fit:----

Provided that the High Court' ehalllrhat, Ltllfia'-,l*3?'l..vtlll'1l':S Section, vary or reverse any order"inade, deciding an issue, in the cou,r-set."ofl"a_.suitl'orlother proceeding, except wher'e:the'.had been made in favour of the revision, would have ﬁ2'1al'ly:,1"dis,oose*d or other Proceedings. 1 by A it (2) The lligh e3ihall':'ii.at, unlderl this section, vary or reverse any against which an appeal Ziesleithegrllto Court or to any Court _ subordinate thereto.' V reilisiol*i:s--hall not operate as a stay of suit or ot'i1erl'pro'ceedil°.igbefore the Court except where such suit do-r,'otlf_l4€?',2;9A,t.oceeding is stayed by the High Court. :".v4."'~--£§:cp1ana'tibn: In this section, the expression, 01' any has been decided" includes any order _.._"lnac:le, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of "aa suit or other proceeding. "

R"; I "Fix J 100 9.3.1. Similarly, it is apt to refer the foilowing relevant Sections of the Karnataka High Court Act which prescri'o.e:' powers of the Single Judge and Division Courts matters ancillary to the exercise of.~Divisien"iv'C'oi;rts,l_'_as*-._ ll intended by the Legislature for enactiniggthei Court Act of 1961 originally called» '=Mysore__ 1961 for regulating the buszinessA..a1'1di_:e:§erciseof-.poVi7ers of High Court in the State oil tin"».:rel,ation to the administration of justice'_an<:1[to itszjurisdiction. 9.3.2. Section nt1{«,4_ Kél~ir;9;iakaltt;iiigh Court Act reads thus: C "Sectionl4,l§ i4gped'i$ freinlilidecisions of a Single Judge of the H"'igIVt]_CiQ_._uft;--

"An front "'oi--"judgment, decree, order or by a Single Judge in the exercise ef. the jurisdiction of the High Court C it _ under th.__is'Ae't or under any law for the time being in force, s"hgi.El lie to and be heard by 41 Bench consisting "«io9,'.ii,i){3_. other Judges of the High Court. C' A' C it [emphasis supplied] /7 if 5 ':

::;wei»~*""'""

li_;iTiiris_dictiolﬁ« o12.':a.re3r"Ju¢2ge of the High Court sitting alone. 103 (z'v~a}- an appeal from any original judgment, order,"

or decree passed by a Single Judge in exerciseVVof:""'e._V the powers under clause (1) of Article 226 , 227 and Article 228 of the Constitution ofInd'iaI 9.3.6. We have seen that, Sectionsfﬂrrii)' not there on the statute, viz.

originally, but the same are insertelcfhjf' Arne_iidrt_i:erit 12 of 1973 with effect from shvalltldiscuss 9.4.1. The the to dispose of revisional cases Section 8 of the Karnataka towlthe civil revision cases filed before Exercise of the revisional juri_sdictioii1iVested4in TCourt under Section 115 CPC, as}: tease . . ,,,_ H lllll if

9.i4.e2';'.s.eceiee_em' of the Act clearly confers the revisional 104 9.4.3. Section 8(2) expressly declares that the decision or order of a Single Judge in cases under Section 8(1) shall be final, of course, without prejudice to his right to refer case to 21 Bench of two Judges for hearing and dispo_s'al--.«l 9.5. Section 8 of the Karnataka __yHigh C_o'urt-~:Act'~:only; confers the revisional jurisdiction trac~eabf1'eA.'to'Section :"i;-..l'E$1:_' CPC but nothing else, because noi_other p"royision.:Vrnuchless Article 227, refers to the revisionaliurisdiction'of High Court; and there is no arnbiguity-whatsoeyerinvthis regard. 9.6. Essentially; a source of power on the thesubordinate Courts, but not a to approach the Court for an3;'yelief\ . 'With any substantive right, Section 1l::"5*v V-oplerlatels llwfsor a limited and restricted reyrjgb _____ , .

above, seen the statutory changes Vlv?'hro1'aght "irevisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 CPC.

'V K .2' E;

107 by deleting the said clause (b) is that, even the failure of justice or the irreparable injury caused to the party agains~t_ whom an order was made, shall not be a ground f0?.~3xerci'f§l33:E'.l"» . the revisional jurisdiction under Section.__l15_".CP(§f_';'. °ri"isp, therefore, clear that the intention of the le?gislVature" :5 the intervention in the revision the _vin~terl_o'cutory orders. The Proposal was ,inVtende*dil:..t_o 'cut the'vn.uIIiber of revisions on petitions, to bariiiiresulting from interlocutory orders, delay in dispensation of interference of the High Court against an order deciding an "court subordinate to the High Court, in the coursciofs agsuit or other proceedings, not (3.f.'attrac'ti'ng Section 115 CPC even it would occasi.on__a Vofhjustice or cause irreparable injury to the 1' v._:ii1ii5'a1"ty, against it was made. Cibviously, it cannot be sidelined that the .i'~4"_reyisioiria1i jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115(1) 5/W'¥\V_§ i i-

} _;' ._ {glee 108 CPC, prior to the Amendment Act 46 of 1999, was exercised in complementary with Section 8 of the Karnataka Hig_h».C0_urt Act, which deals with the powers of the dispose of a revision case by himself "alone, as"'p'er';.Sectironr._ 9"' 8(1) of the Act and whose decision or orderfshall 9.11. We have seen Section--.i:9{~xii) and v2ro'(i.v--'a)""'of "the "

Karnataka High Court Act Arnendrnent Act 12 of 1973 to with effect from 16.7.1973. and reasons for the said all the applications under Articles' of: the Constitution of India were dealt with of two Judges in the Karnataka._%:p:i~{Vigh taking into consideration the proicediulre the other High Courts like Kerala, Delhi, Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh 'VBomh4a}{, applications are dealt with by a Single right of appeal is given to the aggrieved party; it are dealt with by a Bench of two Judges. 110 approach the Supreme Court was very much restricted in view of the Constitution (Thirtieth) Amendment. 9.12. As narrated earlier, even though moved in the Legisiative Assembly ar1d...the ii adopted providing for the writ petitions Single Judge with a right of appea1«.it_4o~r..a }3e.fiC_h,' 'Bill came up in the Legislative Counci1,th:ere°was corrvespoindence between the High Court and the in the matter and the High it was not desirabie to heard by a Single Judge. Hence, moved in the Council to restore the original these matters be heard byv4'_a'Ber1v¢.'r§ii of/two Later, it was considered by the cabitiietjgrieatiievtiy the then I-Ion'b1e Chief Minister and 7'»gdecidediri-.favoti(1j.. amendment, even though the High 'Court was not favour of the same, and accordingly a Aidiraufgt Bill was placed to the effect that applications Articies 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution of 111 India be heard by the Single Judge with a right of appeal to a Bench and it was decided to levy a Court fee of rupees-.44on_e hundred for appeal against the original decree,__. order of the Single Judge in the exevr'cise .*of"'--th_e "V conferred under Articles 226 , 227 and :i2._28:;'of. the.ccirrstitt1dt:c1s.cji of India and further decided to b:*i_n'g_ necessary dmerid.ments v A' to Karnataka Court Fees and 1958.

Thus, Section 9(xii) and t0(iv$a}t.iofif,Zu1es 2(1), 26 and 39 of the Writ Article.ii:I'i§{sa)Jfoi Schedule 11 to

- the Karnataka Céiur1_i;"F_e'eis'~«and5['jSuits-- Valuation Act, 1958, all came into existence. 'V "ii 9.13. It is, thereforeciipertinent to note that even while inserting SeCtionsi"'9_(§<ii).ifanid term; of the Karnataka High ce'itrt'c--Act'iidrrd'-».frerrrring 'creates 2(1), 26 and 39 of the Writ _ Proceedings jasdwell as Article 11(sa) to Schedule II to Karna-taker Ccgurt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, ii'tI*:1'€':?r'E: i"Wjas noﬁcorresponding amendment to Section 8 of d-{igh Court Act. Since Section 8 of the Act t:""- /'t 113 excluded from the purview of Section 4 of the Act,V_--even though they were under Article 227 of the India to get over Section 115 CPC. The Very holds good to counter the argument baiisied and 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules read'-with 1"t'(sa)V._ to Schedule H to the Karnataka.:i"Courlt 'Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

9.16. Truly, the,power_ Article 227 of the to get over the restrictions stands settled by decision of Apex-A DEV RAI case (supra), following the i-'toil?JJConstitution Bench in Clll{§NDRA'&§U1V{ttAR.lcése,V:(Vsu;ira), holding that the power of the 'under.4Ar,ticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of 'glndia ll'elWety':5§_"_v»-infélddition to the revisional jurisdiction iconferred ihunder Section 115 CPC. Curtajlment of the ejurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 not take away; nor could have taken away the .7 7: I lrka 114 constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. fijiia under Articles 226 and 227 of the Corastitution--'..'g:3.fi' therefore, untramrneled by the ame1f;'dir1e«nt_ to CPC; but the same is avaiiable togbe rule of seIf-«discipline and practice, aieracswaii 5.;-t"tiei;1. 9.17. The ratio iaididawn'_:in,vsum?A~i_nEv RA: case (supra) is only with regferencg-...to._the-prgyveishjurisdiction of the High Court to under Articles 226 or 227 of India to get over the restrictions 15 CPC, in View of the CPC (Amendment) 46 not with reference to the maintainabgﬁity. of aﬁpeal against such order passed under Ara<:1e:i227i ofiag Constitution of India.

9.I8g,_iiIn o_ur':éj.0nsidered opinion, what was barred under . 8 of the?-Karnataka High Court Act, viz. in the case of which could be heard by a Single Judge alone orders shall be final, which are traceable to {'""'?"':§~.

2-',"="' \ 115 Section 115 CPC as amended by CPC (Amendment) Act_4__6 of 1999, cannot be revived or made available by reso'rti'n.g-.g:to Article 227' of the Constitution of India, nor such by Single Judge under Article 227 be ap'pe'alled..Aunder.Section"; 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. In not originally available under 1l5--. be made available by invoking-" 'uo§.._thel'Constitution; nor Section 8 of the Kai-nat4aka'V'I?Iii*gh::V be nulliﬁed merely on account of and 10(iv-a) of the Karnataka intended for the matters not of the Karnataka High Court Act. every provision of the Act should be given to harmoniously constructed along tvitli 'ot.herV:s«i;rovisionAs oil; Act. are not attracted by Section 115 "not .-.governed by Section 8 of the Karnataka High could be brought under Section 9(xii) and the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules 2(1), 26 116 and 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules read with Article 11{Sa) to Schedule II to the Karnataka Court Fees and..VVtSi:§1tits Vaiuation Act, 1958.

9.20. In the recent decision in thecase.of".M/:e.fIi»'i,1Vi.T:§C:'3 LIMITED (supra), the Apex Court, reiieetrig ti1tit}t.A(l!.?:(?i$ii§'.)&Iie,i". relating to the power of High Court'to:.V'entertairiV the order of the Single Judge~..paesed tin;dVe'r..Artic1e"'227 of the Constitution of India, namely; KAMATI-I v. SYED AHMED {AIR 1955 sc 233];

(2) UMAJI [AIR 1986 so 1272]; sUeiii1.:t,1§iA: 'h};xnz1NARAYAN MUDLIYAR v. NIHALCHAND'iikfafirltilitetiiﬁj-Ia;.I?'*..:e.§itiAI-IA [1993 supp. (1) sec 111;_(4) MA;§TGALBiIAIv.V_iA:t1?fIPAV:0THERS v. RADHYSHYAM (Dr.] [AHIAR1_1éé~9'3.H:SC,i:8Ot3],'-(.5) LOKMATH NEWSPAPERS (P) LTD. v. 1;.sHANi%mi*{£RAeApeAt'{'1§99{6) sec 275} and (6) SURYA DEV RAM 'ca'ANDER RAI AND OTHERS [AIR 2003 so .3.o4~ij;e»tiwr:erreiniii the Apex Court followed the decision of the under'Arti'cIe Constitution of India, viz. 117 Constitution Bench in L. CHANDRAKUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [AIR 1997 SC 1125], held --

i) that whether the learned Single '7' exercised his jurisdiction under under Article 227 or both wouidiiideperid various aspects and many faciettn C' emphasized in the aforequotedg decisions' Apex Court; and

ii) that it cannot be put in jackeij-fonnula that any order"{gf~the=__learned.iiuidgefffhat deals with an Tribunal or the sugb_o_rdin.a_te.:oVrder under Article 227 of: the _C'on.stitution.,Tgoffrzdia and not an order under Articte 22 C'onstitution.

9.21. ;D*rawingV'di'stinction between two sets of orders paisseid' Judge exercising the power conferred g {1} that eufises against the order deciding an issue, ' " t passed' by any Court subordinate to the High Court, Vin"'-athe course of a suit or other proceedings not finally disposed of attracting Section I 15 CPC; and FM', (by to»-Section 100A cpc by cpc (Amendment) Act 22 2'(}Qi2~A,v_Cw--heteby the bar to prefer an appeal against the order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 118

(ii) from the orders of the Single Judge passed in exercise of power under Article 227 Constitution not attracted by otherwise, orders passed "' Constitution of India are almost obliterated.

9.22. In the light of theafaovie those matters governed under Sectio&n.__'8 Court Act and attracted i'allV.outside the purview of Sections 9{xi-1}. therefore no appeal will lie under Sections are covered under Rules 2(1), 26 and the-_W';it'«}5roceedings Rules; nor Article

11.(sa)v of Karnataléa' Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 195gRif"=hat<'«'

10.l';-«It was argued that, on account of the deletion z""""'.»*':3i~~ " '\ E 120 constitutionally valid and workable, by avoiding anomaly or inconsistency, opting for a purposive construction-..an_d interpreting a statute in a reasonable manner. _Rtecaiis'e_; ta. . purposive interpretation can be adopted "' statute as a whole and the correct v:'int'e_'rpreAtation is:"'o_n'ei_:

that harmonizes the word at tire"-bestliwith. _tli:e of * it the statute. "A right constructiouwof 'the !.ict'.'.,_said Lord I-'orter, "can only be attainedéli-f its scape and object together with an "a_naly:s'is€ cf and the circumstances fin jrvhici: .it{ff-is"' V-ejnaczted are taken into consideration)?' (referred ts».V'pjPRs'1u"cHAND JAIN v. R.!{. CI-IABBRA [(1984g2 scctyteozﬁv order to understand the true purpose objectfarrd reason and spirit of every '- gptatutelfythe Court is constrained to . combi.ne.p.s.'l''literal and purposive approaches. vtj':'I'lierefore,.4__V\x7e_arejlbound to lean strongly on the legislative "'ini:ent'ion behind the amendments brought in to Section V crc (Amendment) Act 104 of 1975 as well as A.rn:e'ndxnent Act 46 of 1999, as discussewdwbove in detail, E 'f 122 two Sections of the same Act, (refer to CIT v. HINDUSIAN BULK CARRIERS, [(200313 sec 57]) "Whenever possible to do so, to construe provisions "

conflict so that they harmonise"g"('refer it KUMAR v. STATE or RAJASTHAN 1992 The provision of a statute cannoitV"'*be the other provision unless» is" i"to"VE effect reconciliation between theirni. insertion of Section 9(xii) anti. High Court Act by cpc cannot by itself be used to tiieiiiiiiviﬂarnataka High Court Act unless effect to Section 8 of the Act, context of the legislative intiéﬁt1°#':e.jbeheiné._theH aﬂrnendment brought in to Section 115 i'C.PC_." construction, either ignoring the ii'.V:l'e'g*1slative4__i intention behind the amendment to Section " 1-11"5._C'PCgreferr'ed to above, in reconciliation with Section would reduce both Section 115 CPC as ainencieéi, as well as Section 8 of the Karnataka High iiiiiii """T.-is'«ar1*swered,v.,_for want of necessity, that the same would not

--a'n3_:_gainfuI purpose. 2 e §"~« 124 order dated 7th November, 2007 in SARASWATHI batch of cases and by order dated 18th December, 2007 in KARIGOWDA case to the larger Bench are answered 12.1. The first question referred to the order dated 7th November, 2007 in "' cases, viz.

"Whether the .}'.indin9.....r:é'3¢orcVi.ed_ Division Bench in Wn%,A§p'¢qz.,}vo.€1 §577{.iof,2oon1""by judgment dated O_:thevEinVtra--court appeal as mdintainabie,'»..iohiohthiscontrary to the decision of another' Division in Vishnu Ganapathi Naiicfe case vi 2006 KAR. 1863] requires the in the light of the pronouncement of Gurushanth Pattedar's case?' '3 ,/5;

<.,,,w.~w*""""

e.H_ighV""(¢3ourt, in the course of a suit or other 125 12.2. The second question referred to the Larger Bench by order dated 7th November, 2007' in SARASWATHI.<bVatelf1"-Vof cases, viz.

"In view of the amendment made-to 7Se*ctio1n;s_:'9. it 10 of the Karnataka High in of Kamataka Act No.12 of insertinrjiiclaiises 9(xii)(b) and 10(iv--a) whetherit1fi{ii4n.tii;a¢~AcourtHdpjﬁeal under Section 4 of 'theﬁet' is on the order passed lay Q; Si:tg'ie-- of the power under3._%5ifi;ifeie 227ioriiiuridefffirticles 226 and 227 of the Constitiztion of Irid--i.a;?"'=_ is answeredaas foiIc)v_vs_;V That an not maintainabie under Section; 4 of High Court Act against the Judge in exercise of Article arising against an order made decidihg ah issue, passed by the Court subordinate to i_i_p__ro'ceeciings not ﬁnally disposed of, which is attracted 126 by Section 115 CPC and is governed under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act; and in all other matters which are not attracted by Section 115 CPC governed under Section 8 of the Act, an 1' under Section 10(iv--a) against the-iorderAp;asseti'V:i Section 9(xii) of the Karnataka I--iigIri':'Co--.iir'ti Aét read Articles 226 and 227 otiixe ofiindia and Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of_tht¢..vvgeit Rules as well as AI'tiC16_ "of:V'ithe Karnataka Court Fees 119158.

12.3. question referred to the Larger Benc1i=.d'by .. 731 November, 2007 in sARAswgiTHI+.batch greases, viz. "'.Wieethe;r" law laid down in Gurushanth m'tzed¢r';§.2%¢a;§é'i requires reconsideration in view of prof:-ourtcemient of the Honﬂble Supreme Court in " ~ 5 "vsmyau Raiis case?"

.fwe' .ai~e.'or the considered opinion that even as per the decision SURYA DEV RAE case referred to above, the view / ' attracted by Section 115 CPC and is governed under 127 taken in PATTEDAR case (supra), does not require ._ any reconsideration and therefore the ratio laid the1'eiLn~.._i'is confirmed.

12.4. The first question referred order dated ism December, 2007 1n.4KAR1-<3owDA_.e;;sfe, "viz; C' "Whether an appeal from cinﬂorderp orhijudgnfieint passed by a Single Judge _in'._ex.ervcis_e'ft_he powers under Article 22? of Bench consisting of twc>:o't--hei:=__Jtidges'-ofitjheyHigh Court, in view of the «¢Q_ntain--ed«iV_'inV_Sections 4 and 10{iv-a}..of VC_Q.iirt Act, 1961 and Articleﬂl 1[s.a)'in_S_c'hed<1ile .11' to the Karnataka Court Fees andVSuits' VaEi§ation"A.c't, 1958?"

is_vanswered' holding' that an intra--court appeal would not lie tindeir of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order" passed' _t1i'ew'Sing1e Judge in exercise of Article 227 in the matters against an order made deciding an issue, by the Court subordinate to the High Court, in the ioffa suit or other proceedings not finally disposed of, 128 Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act; and in allvother matters which are not attracted by Section 115 CPC governed under Section 8 of the Act, an appeatf"wfou1'd C' under Section 10(iv--a) against the ordeirmpasseci undCer._SectiVori»A 9(xii) of the Karnataka High Court and 227 of the Constitution of India'-and 'V 39 of the Writ Proceedings "Rulestas"riieiVt"as Artic'l'e 1(sa) to Schedule II of the Karnataka Valuation Act, 1958.

12.5. Ffin_a1_iy,._:t11;e; referred to the Larger Bench by order 'daterdf.i8t§"{§ece1nher, 2007 in KAIUGOWDA case, viz. V V 'the tddeczsion of the Full Bench in L' GV1.2Tr1.Isr":::;::,_'r':;t:Vi'*:,t. }3attedar's case (ILR 2005 KAR. 2503) requires 'reconsideration P"

answeredthat the View taken in PATTEDAR case (supra) 'not"require any reconsideration and the same is hereby C ' ~~c_onﬁrrned.

4. .,is~sIn.swered in negative.

129

13. In fine, the core issue under reference, Viz. Whether an appeal from the judgment, decree or order passed by the Single Judge in exercise of the power conferred under 227 of the Constitution of India, which--§V.sris't§s---- against any order made Vtieciiding, a*nw~vissue,»i3 passed by any Court suborciinayte to liigh Court, in the course other proceeding not finiilly" and is governed by 4Section"'I%ar:nLtttaka High Court Act,4_Viv9tii§il'i__.an:d atgtirat-tetiiiiayiisection 115 and Section "Civil Procedure, shall hiy"'a'i':Bench consisting of two; the High Court under Section' of the" in View of Sections 9(xii»3* and it;{.itr;ai} oftlie said Act read with Rules and 'the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1:97-71 Karnataka High Court, and Article iii'1.1:"(i.sa?i) II to the Karnataka Court Fees and Valuation Act, 1958?

I30

14. As a result, no appeal wouid lie under Section.ipi4«._¢of.vv the Karnataka High Court Act against the order of . Judge passed in exercise of the power conferred.'u'nder ,!5iii"ttivCiVe 227 of the Constitution of India in the rriatteii:aricsingiagiair1--st"ig' an order made deciding an issue<,--.._V passed by subordinate to the High Court, in the:c'ou1*s_e ofiasuit of other proceedings not ﬁnally disposed' 'of, attracted by Section 115 CPC enemies 8 of the Karnataka High matters which are not attracted Snot governed under Section 8 ofidthevtrouid lie under Section 10(iv--a) against under Section 9(Xii) of the C.ourtAAiAct***r'eVad with Articles 226 and 227 of the ConsvtitutionQoiii:id'i--a and Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of the Writ .:TPr0ceedings'Ruieistias: weil as Article 11(sa) to Scheduie II of S .i{arnatakavC'ourt Fees and Suits Vaiuation Act, 1958. questions referred to the Larger Bench by order det'ejd.. 7.3». November, 2007 in SARASWATHI batch of cases and WC;

atfw '5 ..

234 proceedings except the orders that would fail under the proviso to the amended Section 115 of CPC. So_4far' the appeals are concerned, Section 4 of the ~ High Court Act, 1961 (Act for short} .provide's"fo1i:éi{i'1'iez;iis from a judgient, decree, order or 'sent_e1*ii:e passed'VbfLf'--~;;{'5i.:

single Judge in exercise of the orig_2'r1al"iuriediet,ioii"of»the Higlg Court. The said is KaI'iiataka State Legislature ii} powers from Entry of Constitution of India witfi Viiiioiﬁers of this Court and rights upon the public Iitigaiitsi received the assent of the President oI'{r1"d.ia.' .

. _ .,the Aéibisence of definition of "original thie Act, the learned Advocate General 'EvIr.[§d§iy Arias piaceci reliaiiee upen the Blacks Y _o:::iietioi3,a1y the law Lexicon of Ramanatha Iyer its meariing , with a View to interpret the 'Orignai Jurisdietien' founé in Section 4 of the "Act. As per Blacks Law Dictionary, "originai jurisdiction" is: --

mg "II-5 Es;

c:onfeI*1'e(i under Section 10(iva) of this Court becomes 1'":3dunda,z1t. It is welbsettled iegai position of law hannonious construction of the above provisior;s..of"

Act should be gven to the provisions of 1 that ail the provisions of the T' be given effect to amt} no provision "the Act. b¢cbn1=g* mzgatory with a View to ac.l"1iexrs's' of the statutory provisiofgs in Section 4 of the Aot of original JUI'iSC1iCl3i0¥1 Of there is no such ph1'z1se€..i;1 Soc.9(xii)(b) of the Act. If Vs'tv1'ict i.ntorp1'etatioz1 6% effect to, %::;en on the Division Bench ; ':.1v.'f1_(i€Z' VSfV':"(3V£'i€)''Il '10(iva) of the Act carmot "be '._e§{e:>(:is€c1 the said power remain ozrily on statute. if appeal s.gai11st the orders passed isy a "'si:"ag_§é than exsmise of power {rorlferrsd W""':".v4."'i;oider_ Ssotion 1{)(iva) of the Act. To hear appeals _'_aga.i_V1V'1'stA the o1'd<~:rs passed by single Judge urader 22"? 8:2, 228 does not arise and the said Provision 'oezzomze redtimiamt. M Ma -' 138

7. It is aiso to be borne in mind that the litigants invoking writ jtiristiiotion constitute one criass "

should be given same or similar ' Court Whiie exercising its j1_1dicisi iiieifieiiy .1 Articles 226 83 227 of the Cons'tit:otio1'1A. of if V set of writ petitioners are of another set is denied, and vioiative of Artieie ﬁnch different proeetiisiife is totally impennissibie of Law laid down by the Apes ssLsev'of Eﬁitstte of West Bengal V/ s Anwaraii"Sa1"ksi*..i*e:oofte(i"'4in AIR 1952 so 75. The relevant. puortéionvofi 55 is as under.-

' 'Eta iegsistion is discriminatory and V,VV":iisctfiii?iiri£i;tes one person or class of persons 'eti1ei"s sixziiiiarly situated and denies ts the *fio;:I€1er the privileges that are enjoyed by the .Vi.fitte1*, it cannot but he regarded as "hostile" in the sense that is affects AA iinjmiousiy the interests of that person or *» Veistss. Of eetzrse, if oi"ie's interests are not at all' affected by a particular piece of legisiatiori, he may have no right to complain. But if it is 7 established that the person complaining has been discriminated against as a result of legisiation and denied equai priviieges with others occupying the same position, I do not think that it is ineuinbent upon him, before he can claim relief on the basis of his 'qN/ 1.39 fundamentai rights, to assert and prove that in making the law, the iegiskature was actuated by a hostiie or inimical intention against a partieuiar person or class."

It', appeals are to be entertainecl only % orders, judgments etc. passed in e§'<ereise.V of jurisdiction oniy as inte1*preter.i_ in ﬁve,'.-".e,Jtud'ge judgment in the case of Pattedai', to be justiﬁed by the '$Vo1i'e itor Genera}, it amounts to it powers conferred upon of' under Sections 4 reaei denying the statutory upon the public:

litigant, wf1'ﬁ(;hL"is in iaw. Therefore, in my consiidered tfze referred to this Bench aﬁlvlavevtttoébe answered in favour of the zvr'$u§\s'3:;£jﬁ§13a.;its foe-gtttioziers. sacass 130-A CPC debars second agpeal :'s4gajar;st_.the"j;t1<:i@nent, decree or order passed by the J'u'C:ige in the first appeal. That is only in respect T 'crivil matters. In fact by a proposed amerzdmerzt, the I;i§f1't of appeal provided against the orders passed WM gave a power of judicial superintendence to the High Court apart from the iI1<;iependentiy~_"* __ .V cf the provisions of other laws conferri:ig~._e'V'...__i' 5 revisicnal jurisdiction on the High (3o';irt:. Section 107 of the Government of Indieficti 1915 and then Section .;224_ gr iris; Government of India Act £935; were sirtiilariy ' wordeci and reproduced the predecessorv , " ' provision. However, stitzesecticn {2} added in Section 224 w'-iiicifi comixieci jurisdiction of the High "*Coi.1_rt to ._s'1'1ch} judgments of subject to a§:pea¥. "or revision"

That restriction 11as..1i'ot b:(3€I:}C&L£fl_"§€Ci~.fOI1VaI'd in Article 227 of the _i_(Tio:1.stituti0:1:»._Ii;._ that sense Article 227 of...t_iie 'Co;1s;titutic':i has Width and vigsiLzr_ur1precegfierite{'i.._V ' Diifere3._i--ce'- "iﬁetxveer1"'~ wiit of certiorari under Articlfe 226'-J ..a_:1d supervisory jurisdictiori 'ig1r1de:r' :Ai"t.icie 22'? '

25.' Upon ~«éxs4rexr:¢eq£ decided cases and a survey of the occasi-ons wherein the High Courts have' '._exerci'sed jurisdiction to Colijliifland a"writ of certiorari or to exercise siipemiscxy jurisii-etion to command a writ of certiorarié 3.0? to exercise supervisory .} j~urisd'ic:iozi .__"LiI"1Ci€I' Articie 1227 in the given " .i'ac__£:s circumstances in a variety of cases, it; eeem_s'i;%1Vaé the distinction betwwn the two figzziéeciicticris stands aimest ebiiterateci in practice; Probably, this is the reescn why it fies became customary with the lawyers V':-V 1a_b«e?,Iirig their petitions as one ccmmon Vuzide-r Articles 226 and 227 of the Cionetitiitien, thcugh such practice has been it "ézleprecated in some judicial pronouncement.

Without entering unto niceties and technicality of the subject. We venture to state the broad genera} difference between the two juzisdictions. Firstly , the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its crigiiiai 'qM/ "made, or any order deciding ego issue, in the 147 22/02 were examined by the Apex Court in the above case. The relevant paragaphs from the said extracted hereunder: ~ "40. Section 115 of the code vests 'pot1ver__of,~.,,_, _ A revision in the High Court "~c:o'L1I"LS " A T subordinate to it. Proviso to fsectior; 'iw.15{1),(:5I". the é code before the amendme'11t'-h.y Act 46 _ot'v-,_1999"

read as under;

"Provided that High V c,o}_1rt'~.,shai1 not, 11r:,der the section, vaxy-tor' ,r¢:m~s¢ order made, or any order deciding an-""issu¢.,--" in the court of a suit _or.otI1erV'p"rot:eedi13g, exrgept where the order, ifsit '.,;1;2d ¥:$ee1%; £nat;£e_ "feg;our of the party app__lyir:g_ for} revision, 7\}V0}_;11(3_' have finally dispoeed or V the3uit" or o"t"{_1er" proceeding, or a} the 'd'o:*der,'?,_iI' -aﬁowed to stand, would 7v.,oC-easionffooé of justice or cause irgeparaole---.,'inju33f"to the party against whom it wad .:r1a(.{e. "

(eAri1;)t1a.sis supplied) 'N,oW.,, th_e':afo.resaid proviso has been substituted L-by-.the foiZowiio,gv"proviso; eerowarititee that the High Court ehail not, tmder.. this section, vary or reverse any order

- , v~.df::ooree of a emit or other proceeding', except where " . t;1jae- order, it it had beer: made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have ﬁnally ' -disposed of the suit or other proceeding." 'The aforesaid clause (1)) stands omitted. Tmtle question is about the constitutional powers of the High Court under Article 2127 on account of omission made in Section .115 of the Code. The \\N/ ,w~r 150 by the teamed eounsei Mr.V. LakShII1iI1ElI'£i}'€iI1 in of his iegal submissions regarding the H Court under Artiste 226 85 227 of the _t J India and Appeﬂate jurisdiction, it x .

"9. In a unified Ilierarehiaj jlidicial S32 S't'e:r;_ which India has aecegdted 'a.r1<ier its Constittltion, vertically thetS.t1preme"Cou1t is placed over the High The very"'fae"t that the constitutéoi: confers"~-..an"~appe11ate power on the Supreme' ov'er_=,t:i1e High Courts, certain conseqeezices ﬂow and follow, .Ap'peai; nature} and ordinary fx_1ea':'1i1_c1gV 'me. remeval "of a cause from inferior» "or"-_ tribunal to a superior --.or;e:".for the "p'urp'ose_§~ of testing the so11r1dh'es:-iiiof cl':eoisi'::s1ji'-and"ijroceedirlgs of the inferior The superior forum 'sham have jmjsdiction to reverse, conﬁrm, "or modify the decree or order of _t}f1e feruIz1._app;3ajed against and in the eyeritof a remand the iower forum shall have I;e_":re§hear the matter and comply with such , =<§iirecti.o'ns'*-.as may accompany the order of ._ re12:1.a'r1clt. - "i'.he* appellate iurisdiction inherently " ._ it a power to issue corrective }€3»iI'ﬂ€ti0zie.. tending on € elzi the eeft ef the iatter te cart? eat such. directions or Show disrespect to or to V' * geeeiien the erogrietv 9:' such dgreeﬁons or _ asghetsr diereseeet to ex' to question the Averetztrietv of such ciireetion W01_}1é'~it is __?obviou.e-ta destructive ef the hierarchial svsteni in aeizrﬁnistration of iustice. The seekers of itzstiee and the soeietv" would lose faith in bath.

10. in Shankar Ramachaoclra Abhyankar Vlérishnaji Qattatreya Bapat: this Court pointed out that appeal is the right of \w/ $51", emerixixg the superior Court: and invoking its T aid and interposition to redress the error " _ the Court below. There are two in1portz1:1t_; " , '' postuiates of constituting the appeiiate Q' jurisdiction (1) the existence of the re1aVt_io11..of[f ' superior and inferior court; a1f2.»:1».(.ii) the power in the former to review ciecisitms of £§he._lé,tter;' _ Such jurisdiction is capabiej T m' *b_e'L'.1g_ "

exercised in a variety of forms. '_:;n'agme.l'--ii§_§. Drocess of civil law orig-gir1~...Vand"' removes"'~..a""' cause, emiireiv subiecti11g,€h.e'faCts asweii as the law, to a reviewianci aAre13}ivai."_ "

11. The very _eco1'1féI';rai_'o.f*»..a;ppeﬁa{e jurisdiction V -,w»a:::u '"~::

consequen;:e.$§ (jloniijrajé 2'1 "vPrir1cipal substaxltivie jiirisdictidriiiwcarries ivith it, as a necessary "_cor;eo;11i'cajn_t"*~.o:' _ that. ' power, the power to.,exer'g:ise S1161?' other incidental and anciiiary. rApower's'with01it w'i1i<:f1 the conferrai of 'a_he_ pri'n.«::ip_ai, prgﬁreor .s3:1a11 be rendered red21'nd:ai.f1t; »As~.f1e.ld.4}jy..ff'i:eir Lordships of the Privy C.Cou;t1s'el in "'--.Na.gendra Nath Dey V.Suresf1-«.,Ci1anc_irs:-, Deyaz (Sir Dinshaw M11113 speaking f0'r._t_;he Bench of ﬁve), an appeai is g4gp1i;:atior1'~v{*,~jy*"a party to an appeiiate court' .aski1_jg it to set aside or revise a decisior1.,G£_ 5;-izbordinate court. The aggeal ._Tc{oes""riat 'cease to be an appeal thogglg iIfrem_1._arVler' ineomeetent. Piecing on record oeirsiaﬁszr, guiaramania Avver, J. as a member of the F11}! Bench (of ﬁve Judgeei in or » enanmm v.?s:Iei<:i'i_:§1 Kuf:ﬁ3 {at iz.Rg.eo) siated ,i._:"1tie1* aiia that aﬁﬁeaj is "" the removal of 3 cause or a suit ﬁom 3.31-inferior to 3. sueerior fudge or cogrt for re~--exami_;2ation or review".

According to Wha.rto:rz's Law Lexicon such removal of a cause or suit it for the purpose of testing, the soundness of the clecision of the inferior court. in consonance with this particular meaning of 2152:3631, "appeilate jurisdictiori" means "the newer of a superior \§¢\,_/ V case 5:: iﬁéiid' in View of the gyravisions of 4 2?'/w Eﬁﬁva) of 'giﬁg Kaxilataka High Court Aét, enacted by the State Legslature in exercise of its "~4:§::o§1"stitu§io:1al powers 246(3) of the const.itu.i:;ion of India. as part of the function of the High Court may irlvoive the exercise of a power or jurisdiction which is subject to a superior power like an appellate power".

XXX "A11othe:r question which °az'iscVAs' . would ho whether evenihc pa'1"!ian:1enrgin . Vi exercise of its ordinary ~I_;%:gislatiir::__ pow'¢1*""._"

Lm(ier Articlos 245 and 246-._ca1'_1 oreaiolian 1 appellate j1}I'iS(1iC:{i§)I1 ihc High Courts? In this coz1t:r:xt~'_it ;Va§jpr:t_arS.lto me there exists a clear distiilctiozi bemlséia. the power of the._Legisiat.1..1_re to 2; 1ﬁaké:--i,;:"'law providing _tha_t single ucige:'_* or ' Sign-icified number 'of =Ji1dgei~3 'of :13:-:v.vIrIiig'i"1" Court 51101361 ¥3X€.F"CiS3't:"'thC'j::J:isz:liCt.ior1vested in a. High Court'-::33.d<-:r i_:1*iel"C'.o1.1Stit1mon and the powéflitoo. .ﬁ:1ake"?I 21 law"-that" appeal shall lie }froI11-the".{i»¢éisionV"of the High Court in exercise. of 3:ht;.J.1iroiséiiCti=0n vested in it by the Cot1stitu'tiofi.A'1;~11"<:ior Articles 226 , 227 "above said legal principles laid. down by above case aptly applicable to the

19. The earlier 5 Judge Bench of this Court: in Guttedar's case while ansswering the points retkerrod to it. 'iv E66 Industrial '1'ribuna1/Labour Court, quasi Jtzdieial Tribunals/Authorities, Family Courts & Civil their respective proceedings and the 3 expressly conferred and the same to.' orders, judgments etc, passed jurisdiction oniy.

26. Accordingly, w11i1¢:%«.c1i1:'¢e:~i:ig :f;*oii1«.the view} taken by H0n'ble Chief Justice, referred to this Bench {he --._as v fefeffed to in the penultimate. ,<j_)f :§df€-§-

»s~ """";'1l §u&ge

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Tammanna S/O Dyamappa Battal vs Miss Renuka D/O Ramakrishna Reddy on 13 March, 2009

Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, V.G.Sabhahit, K.L.Manjunath, A.S.Bopanna, A.N.Venugopala Gowda