Karnataka High Court
Sri Balachandra Vigneshwara Dixit vs Sri H S Srikanta Babu on 26 March, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR KAR R 934
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE mon COURT 012' KARNATAKA cI;;etiI*f['»%ae.V
BENCH, AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY op 0% k V'
PRESENTia:o ;
THE HON'BLE MR. J'lI:STICE"N,
AN3jL_ . . .
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JIJ;;S}I?ICi*3-Ii3.§SR:'Eié)1?IIVV*.{1SE GOWDA
Q .No;a%%2Q*.2o of 2099 A iC;:V1L)
Sri Ba1:achTandf;'?a V§gi1eShWara
S / 0 late Vignesizw-a1'a'T ._ ' ~
Age: 5: years ~
R/0 Gokainao V
Uttalja ..Kanri'ad§ 'Di--sti*icf s . . .Comp1a.inar1t
. V. - Lvlois, Sr.Advocate for Sri V.G.Bhat
_& J.S.Shetty, Advocates)
1. S1;iaH..V$.Srikanta Babu
D _ Aged about 56 years
V V "~._Desk Officer
V ' -VRevenue Department (Endowment)
M.S.Bui1ding, Bangalore
' = 2. Sri G.S.Narayanaswamy
Aged about 53 years
Revenue Secretary (Endowment)
have filed Misc.W.No. 61344 of 2009 to recall the
dated 27.05.2009 and to hear them regarding .
of the proceedings against them .... ..in_ the""i11:tere'st'_' .0132 " "
justice.
2. The facts giving 1faisiev..toV.,_vthese'«pifoceedings
are as under:
c.c.c.Nq.2o:20 of:;lg2ool9.¥1s~.fi1ée._1;y 'gsfie Balaehandra
Vigneshwaraéll the praying for taking
action [violating the orders dated
12.08.20oe,:_2 14.01s.':é.oo£§;1~.000212.2006 and 19.12.2006
pass,eld in writ No. 17580 of 2006. After service
"'._ef:'«.1j1otice., ~.rr-rzspondents entered appearance and
of objections, denying the
'VVal1egatio"1os..'4'.VAfter hearing the learned counsel for the
this Court passed an order on 27.5.2009 as
' under:
"Shri Subramanya Jorls, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the averrnents containec:l.¢.._iii:VV':':":'-..V"'-
the statement of objections filed on be:hatf: V'
of respondents 1 to 5 only»__afl"irrns'-- "
contemptuous act on the respondents in trying to over--reach".t, interim order dated V] on 19.12.2006;_.in W.i?.zSfo.305o9/2008 the passing' dated 12.08.2008, andV:l'thet?eftife;"~~tgrtttgges will have frarned officers of the i-St}a:te£t:t~. ' are directly respor1S"ib'ie,__ for p_as"singH_ of such orders fiwhich"i}irtually'«arnou.nis to disregard and o'oer'~-reaching.of._:the="order that has been pass'ed"byVthe=Court.
It is also--submitted that disposal of the «dpeiition would not make any to this position for the reason that the writ petition, in fact, had not really " beconie infructuous but the learned it Government Advocate filed a memo A' apprising the Court that writ petition has become infruciuous in the wake of the order dated 12.08.2008, which itself is an act of contempt.
3. The accused filed Misc.W.6 1090 recalling the order dated 27.05.2009. By.Veor;$.i'cle1t?edt..ti order the Learned Judges application. rejected the said application anedtt-lir1V"the of the order it was observed ast'l'u§'1der:
"Even afterl ~ learned Advocate General, the position' not charges have to theijaccitsed persons and the-ir1'rJesp0_nse"el--icited.} _ __ _ ' learned Advocate General' :_4"p0'irited out that the A _ _Vcontn;ecVted..wril'. appeal having been lts ted with matter, these two matters _ subsequent related writ petition the legality of the order dated and all be taken up together.
j a ti' Sn' Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel submits that the outcome of the writ appeal will not have any bearing on the contempt proceedings. 1'/,. I3 judgments as they throw some light in decidingg".this issue.
10. Sri V.R.Datar the learrliellcli .lc:Aoiivn'se1:
our notice the statutory pifoyrgision-sh:"contai,ned:' in High Court Rules. He pointed'i*oi'J't a by the learned Chief Justice of these review petitions before to roster and not passed the said order it counter to the statutory"
provisions, '' _ ._ - S
11. Sri B.P.Hiren'iaiih learned counsel who is also = the P_'fesid'enMt of thev--A..d'Vocates' Association of the Circuit submitting on behalf of the members of .the%lBar'Vcori:tended the Circuit Bench is constituted virt:;1_el':of the power conferred on the Chief Justice "tii1<:1:ei*"g;Section 51(3) in consultation with the Governor of ,.._j'4A:g'11§3'_i'nataka in order to see that the litigants of this area kt/.
I7 absence referred to in Rule V. Karnataka High Court Rules, 1 enable the learned Chief direct the pet1'tion_/ applicationhf;*r: ":'evieu3/ reconsideration orlrecalltng ofldn "to be posted Circuit Bench? H A C C V C C C J order are very of the High Court of ._ sitting at the Principal Bench for the litigant to approach thel.'P.r.tn.ctpc:l Bench for hearing of the review A petition when the learned Chief Justice could ' llfgonsltimte a Bench of the very same Judges are very much part of the Bench and who are available to him for the constitution of the Bench?
to 19 efforts, was not within the knowledge of V. seeking review. A prayer for review is a prayer-for' ij_udicial..l _ i re--examination of the case in gcertain 7speci.f_ie-dp._facts7 and/or circumstances. It is a A're¥'examinatio1i of proceeding already concluded} types.
[a] Procedural and hour': or Tribunal has inherent review.
Article 226 has conferred a plenary pdwenl Vtgcolurt to exercise the jurisdicjtionpower to review is implied in the of review inheres in every Cour';§l"0f;plenary"VV jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of o1;..corr.ect grave or palpable errors committed by 1'E»j- Sections 152 and 153--A of Code of Civil giilfirccedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred as 'CPC'] are fiifferent from the provisions of review contained in S114, 0.47, 152.1 of CPC. They deal with different EV 20 powers. In fact, a review under 0.47, R1 and amendment under 8.152 are totally different In the case of a review, the correctness of the _ decree or order is in question, while in thev'-e:e.se"w.of "
amendment of decree, the eorrectnes$"of' assumed and the jurisdiction "is. for "bringing Alh_'e...,(1€'E2re€ 2 L' in conformity with the j_udgmen_t,'Again Where'Aa_r?eview is aliowed, the case has to drnerits but not if an amendment is' a_..11oWe'd;' ' review, a fresh decree is passed_wh«i1e'«in"the case of an amendment the same decree to'~be'éunerrded.
* «.STAT3U'If§)R§{ I=1£o'vIsIoNs of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Apflotiicetion for review in Court V ooneisting of two or more Judges»- AA Where the Judge or Judges, or any it one of the Judges, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the 1' 'L/ 22 provides that the Judge or Judges who had '_ the alleged error should have an ditty./,4'? reconsider it. I T. _ ._ V. (3) The prohibition against orldiudges had not participated in the V.o'1*._(l_)i"dlé:-.*-' to be reviewed from hearing for review is limited to a case where who passed the decree or inajde' the order is gorf'areg,.avai1able to hear the samel'Wlh.e'n for hearing. If they would be available.' ll Witl:11i\1;i,:'4--» from the date of presentation' of .tlV.=teii'--application for review", no other Judges can hear it. Where a provision in a and the mandate has been issued inla._4c1ear.ari.d strong language, the duty of the Court is ll"-'««___l'merely" give effect to that mandate irrespective of all T "considerations, as to the consequences resulting from adoption of such a course. It is not for the Court to speculate on the wisdom of the policy underlying the {L/, 24 all these circumstance, we should naturally expect to meet in the Regulations upon subject such provisions as would preventlthiei evils necessarily incidental__to__ de_lciy"' "
I3rocrastination." .- * ' V (5) The Supreme Court. in the INDUSTRIES LIMITED vsl""i«1T?TRAVINB1§DaI:".= jzisemu PATEL [Am 1997 SC3892}lhleldiléisllynunder the revVievw:_VVe__l_'.not by before thevsuiperior Court but they to the same Court' the matter, for Persuading' tolrecall or reconsider its own oln"""grounds which are legally
--.per_rriissible for reviewing such orders. As AV"..,_ylaid:ldvo_Lvn"lay Order 47 Rule 5 cpc as far as po,ssib!l'eA the same two learned Judges or Judges who decided the original A "proceedings have to hear the review petition "arising jrom their own judgment. Thus in substance (1. review amounts to reconsideration of its own decisions by the very same Court. When the Court sits to \i\/.
26 time when the main judgment sought to be reviewed, was rendered. Review jurisdictiori,x therefore, cannot be said to be independent jurisdiction sought exercised by the Court dehors. the 4' the jurisdiction exercised judgment sought to; he repotiewedep rendered by it.
(6) A Full Bench' 'high cm in the case of RA.TANLAL ----i"()TIERS vs Naivnzraueoszés iorHERs'i;ArR 1999 CAL 291 had an occasion to conisidierpts-eireral questions including the questpiori Rule 5 of CPC is mandatory '--.and7.i__ti1eire is no discretion in a civil proceeding except of review" application by the learned Judge wvho a party to the earlier proceedings and is .a§ai1ah1e. It was held that, the Honfble Chief V' has an unfettered jurisdiction in the matter of coristitutiora. of Benches in all matters including a review application. As a matter of propriety, a Judge who is is/ 28 Chief Justice has full authority and power to distribute the work to the Judges and to regulate their jurisciictirm and sittings. The learned Chief Justice in his M has observed as under : -
"As master of the roster-*,el..
Justice is expected to know thetiniplicagtiont a review and reference ointirty other.ntotter"Lf)£); significance including proper C '' hearing' V v of.» case by a Judge t§han"'one'J,udges of the Court._ conseittuting In
e):Cepfiofi:o1.lféTisesiwhen"there is a chance of " i notwithstanding the procedure' 7, Rule 5 of the Civil :.Procedure" Code."-the. review application can lillbefilaced heforela Judge or a Bench of more
--. Judge as constituted by the Chief it would be in conformity with the procedure and judicial discipline that» n 1. Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code of Procedure although ipso facto has no application in relation to a writ proceeding or a proceeding on the Original Side of this Court as well as in proceedings that arises live | 31 Rules dealing with matters pertaining to the and Nicobar Islands. Rule 3 of Chapte1_j_ Appeilate Side Rules as axnendaelclllll 32l'2gfldV' 1991, read as follows : --
"3. All cases under Articles /and.:lj' ofthe Constitution of India hihshalllfbe the Islands and - heard"b'g-- the A ll of the said Rule appelarsl to matters pertaining to V» the islands be initiated and disposed V V" thelslandls lay the Circuit Bench visiting C " on being appointed by the Chief time to time. In our view, the "Circuit Bench" mentioned in Rule _ __.3.would not necessarily mean the same set it * Judges who initially hears a matter which is afterwards the sutgject matter of a review application. "Circuit Bench" has been defined in Rule 1{b) to mean (:1 Bench consisting of one or more Judges holding Court in V Islands. If the intention of Rule 3 is thai'-- A cases pertaining to the Islands shi:iuid~::'_be"-. * initiated and heard in the,' Circuit Bench, it would become entireiy'* impractical toapply of 47 Rule 5 of the Code__..of._Civil Procedurie which would eniail the reviewA"'application being heard by the; who initially the I in fact, could review according to n:orm_a.lA Jiii:ig_es visit the Islands on Circuit by .g'rid"a set of Judges who sit onla. C'ircui'--t may not be available to on VvthelC'ircuit.u)ithin the same year. 1%; "faforesaid situation necessarily that it may not always be possible for'-V"Bench hearing a review application to .. V' pass a final verdict on the review application it stating what the order on the main application should be. The limited time available to a Circuit Bench in deciding a review application may require to review iv 34 statutory provision, providing for initiation of proceedings at the Circuit Benches, as such judgment has no application to the facts of 'A
16. The Karnataka High Ciourté cu High Court of Karnataka Proceeding) Rules, 1981. of 'miles reads as under:-- A c "20. Application = Court of Karnaétcilcua Riiiesitil In niatters not for.' in these rules, the procedure' "in the High Court of Karnatalca _R%uzes.3',»,j959 as amended from to tirrie;.$,hail mutatis mutandis apply to W , the pr'oceedings under these rules."
Chapter III of Karnataka High C0.;tr'tRules, 1959 reads as under:
. cc Every petition or application for review, reconsideration or correction of a judgment, decree, order or sentence shall be posted before the original Bench which pronounced, made or passed such 36 retirement. We are concerned with the Bench being not avaiiable by reason of 'absence'. Therefore."'-it-«."is necessary to find out the context in whichh ' 'absence' is used in this provision.:and. the 1eg§a1VI.effect;.ofv.. the same.
OTHERS [ILR 2004 situation regardingt'the';i;nean§Ain.g"'of"the ixfo1'd: 'absence', it has been held as nnderi V. V _v "4'9.In the meaning of the V 'otoii*1g,______to absence', it is to be 'A that many words of common V' language have more than one 'A It is not infrequent that a word one meaning in its ordinary A' "'---._enz'j:'>l0ynIent has a materially dyfferent or 'V inod§f"1ed meaning in its legal use. The word absence is a fair example. It is held that one may be absent, though actually present, as
18. In the case .o£__ Pnof.s.N_.r£EonE 82. f, where a Judge though on the Bench, does 38
50. In re An Act concerrfinai' :"
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (31.A2d~v~--»83~?'}"'*~.:: 841, 130 NJI 123), it wasfheztty tLttot_r_fds_.._l""' 'absence' as used in constialttonal. provision «. V' E that in case of Govet"nor.'s absertce'fr0rh""' State the powers and .._of shall devolve Senate until the Governor ret?tz:fr't.b'.'.:'g:tog2s not mean the state. pg the Governor tpalrpose period of tirlne means an absence affect public interest' from a mere tenqiorary absencefi .§ 5;. It; .Vs. REPRESENTATIVE " at . GOVDNCILV OF cm' OF NEW PORT (57 A 2 D RI, 498}, it was held that the "'4«..Mu__n"1ci;5a1 Charter provision that chairman of board of aldermen shall perform duties of or in case of 'absence' or inability of ' "mayor to act did not authorize chairman of board to perform mayors duties in case of a vacancy in that office created by mayor's death, since quoted word connotes that a 42 to the Chief Justice to constitute 21 Bench. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is not available by reasori--.»Tof 'absence' from constituting the original Bench.
20. The circular issued _providing""'fo1'"j Ru petitions being posted as per roster *~eXi'sti_r1g; iitlttheivt-i Circuit Bench reads as uI1de'r; :«--.. H Court--obj "Ka'Fnatafcq--, . . ' .__ .Circuit « _ ' ' _c'Di1(1*'UJad.'rv._ .
io:;%29.i'2,2oos * C hNoTIF:cA_1*51oN{I§cE:cstxo 1 /2 008 It hereiagf bno.ti"fi'ed that review petitions relating..Vto'«t.FtLdgments, Decree, fJr'der or sentence pronounced, made or by the...L1:'Uisi0n Bench or Single "'Bei:ch_ in respect of Circuit Bench, 3 '-will be posted as per the ._ "5'__ros'ter.,,_e2éisting in the Circuit Bench, ' V 'I3hcI.rtvC'z;:i'i'' '' By Order of Horfble Chief Justice " Sd/--
(B.A.PATIL) Addl. Registrar General it 21. Review of an order or decree is statutoriiy provided. Once there is a provision in the statute, the la/ 47 constituting the original Bench. It is 3 committed by them that is to be rectified i and not by other Judges, as the exercised is that of review j1iriSsadiCi'.i0I.i'&lI1d jurisdiction. This is an aspectiivviiich Justice has to bear review provisions are not an appellate Provision.
POINT were members of the original ]3e'nch V:v§rhieh"~.--"'decided the matter is not the Circ'o:i~t"Bench and they are discharging Principal Bench, is it not possible to constitute.itneioriginai Bench there to decide the review 'petitio1'1?__A'3it was contended that the matters which arose g.'i"or~ consideration or which arise for consideration at the Circuit Benches cannot be decided by the Principal Bench. In support of that contention, they relied on the L 48 judgment of the Division Bench of this court 3 of E.RAM MOHAN CHOWDRY VS. H GENERAL, HIGH covnrr OF I:A;1éivA'ir.+1r:Ai; «r.éporj:¢d:'*' AIR 2008 KAR 195. Th.erefore,"~the ojJ,esi.ioh consideration is: g _ A 5 Whether the precluded from hearing mcttters C' -Circuit Benches at it In ordertto coriterition. it is necessary to look intothe the constitution of the High Court. of Karuriataksg', "Court of Mysore and the Chief iiiii Princeiy State of Mysore, the High C _ Court was as the Chief Court of Mysore and was W H 'T Chief Judge. By Act 12/ 1930 for the words Court of Mysore, Chief Court and Chief Judge", it the words "High Court of Mysore, High Court and Chief C 3 Justice" respectively were substituted. His Highness la, 52 on the 25:5 day of December 1961. It published in the Karnataka Gazette Section, 14 of the Karnataka t:{igtfi::Acomjt-¢A::?c;--_1,96;"f repealed Sections 11, 12, 13,,1;4, 15rr,,_%1re, 16_--.'A.,.',.1v'6-:B,':';2é.(}~ V and 22 of the Mysore High Act 1 of 1884). However; of the Act are stfil in force. ._ ,
26. se¢tmn_t,*51 of gthe A¢tro£-1E356 which deals with principalt"'see;tj;»art€iiA: 'other-p1aAée's"of sitting of High Courts for new : --
"51.VP_rine'ipa"i other places of . sittitng _of1_'Iigh"Cou_r.ts for new States.- seat of the High Court .' . "V State shall be at such piace V President may, by notfied A. order, appoint.
_ N MAThe President may, after consultation with the Governor of a new State and the ChiefJusttce of the High Court for that State, by nottfied order, provide L 53 for the establishment of a permanent A Bench or Benches of that High Ccnartv ll at one or more places Loithin ' other than the prirlcifxal seat' i 4' ' High Court and : for 1 connected Vt (3) Notwtths tanding alnyithtng-. _ 'contained,' in sub-sectional' {1}} orj' (2), the judges of the High for also Sit or places in V Chief Justice may, 'with of the Governor, appoint:
l " _ V" 52 of «said Act deals with jurisdiction of States which reads as under : --
45.?;gJafisdiction of High Courts for new " The High Court for a new State "._V"shall have, in respect of any part of the : territories included in that new State, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as under the law in force iv 54 immediately before the appointed day, is y y exercisable in respect of that part of the said": .4 territories by any High Court or Jud_i-cial" .
Commissioner's Court for an existing S~tate;~.. it Section 54 deals with prétcti(iei~ Ap"rocecl§[;irér1vi.:
which reads as under: --
"54. and; Vp'1*ocedure;V--
Subject to the provisions of law in force inirnediagtely the 'appointed day withi». _ .an:dWprocedure corresponding State shalir with' "rrzod;'fu:ations, apply in relation» to "Court for a new State, _"'and'occordir1g,ly,ythe High Court for the new it p have all such powers to make ruies--«.ivaridv.'-borders with respect to practice .procedure as are, immediately before V theloppointed day, exercisable by the High it ' Qoiirtfor the corresponding State. Provided that any rules or orders which are in force immediately before the appointed day with respect to practice and 55 procedure in the High Court for the corresponding State shall, until varied]: revoked by rules or orders mad.e__by the " V Court for a new State, apply 1 ._the' necessary n'lOd_i_ffl_'3afiOP.$ trig relatiorif. . to practice and procedure i'n._:the H Cottft S the new State as made.-bg:["thatLCourt.-- Section 69 reads 5- "69. 'vNo_tf1tr1g.__«« thigbart shall affect the Court for a 'State tirooisions of the shall have effect subje"ct_.to, that may be made " or afVte'rr.t_:hVe' appointed day with respect to Coturtwtby any Legislature or other C V '' "having power to make such " .
C it A reading of Section 51 of the Act of 1956 the principal Bench of the High Court shall be at V _ place as the President may notify. The principal seat of the High Court of Karnataka is at Bangalore. yd//.
58 business. There is no territorial bifurcation4*.VV"'-Q3. of the Bombay High Court merely beca'use..j"'hs:"' A the Chief Justice by the impugned."o'r'deVrl". ' issued under sub~Section {3]:=.ofSection.51l ' the Act directed that the Judge and C' V Courts shall also sit Chief Justice acted the best of intentions within 'slcopefi powers.
We see no__substanc_e._ conclusion by the Chief exercise of power, » V" ' ' ll H allow the appeal
preferr_ed.,by ._the_ "State of Maharashtra, set __iaside theiijudgrruent of the Bombay High dated becember 14, 1981 and direct " C' "sittings of the High Court of of Bombay may be held and coritiniie to be held at Aurangabad, in A. Borhbay High Court, with full and normal _}3owers to entertain and dispose of all matters arising out of the Marathwada region, that is to say the area comprising the districts of Aurangabad, Bhir, Jalna. gt/_ 59 Nanded, Osrnanabad and Parbani. All cases pertaining to that region and pending as on T _ this day at the main seat of the High court;'f--f"a"r that is, at Bombay shall have to be with the disposed of as the Chief JL_:,--st'iee:~of the High Court may direct, 'V the terms of the Notiflcation".dat'ed Attgasvt = "
27, 1981 issued by hin9t."7:.t:"."*~._p In the case of CHCWDRY V. REGISTRAR GE,NERAL~,« t:o£9' KARNATAKA {zoos {s)ArRtl_rg:qf§tik5s:g(1)31), ttislhelti as under:
v.Co:1stderrlJ::iJg the contentions urged V' the learned Counsel, the point that arises , for"toatconsideration is:
V . '.V'V'eT$Vtiether the power of the Chief Justice weer 'subsection (3) of Section 51 of the Act A. inctttdes the power to establish a Bench or ...3Benches at Such, place or places and to specify the territorial jurisdiction of such Circuit Benches and to transfer the pending 60 cases to such Circuit Benches and to permit ~ filing of new cases at such Circuit Benches'? V " The said question is answered in the foflowing' Hence, it is apparent that, virtue C' V power conferred on the sub--section (3) of ;,Section..£{1"'v.oj'--.the .Act,...the:§ Chief Justice or Benches, atsuch 'tt3he're the Judges sit and that he to issue the filing of cci.ses__ proceedings at such place' process, there will be no' territorial Ab~ys'urcVation of the High Court 'oft:'__CAKarnatCdcd,____,rnerelg because of the made in terms of the impugned Hon'ble Supreme Court in the it ':State of Rqjasthan v. Prakash uchandv and others reported in (1 998} 1 scc A ' [AIR 199g so 1344) has held that, the " Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court has the prerogative to distribute the business of the High Court, both judicial and administrative, that the Chief Justice is the 61 Master of the Roster and that he alone the right and power to decide how---.4':thei.i:: Benches of the High Court___-are constituted, which judge has to and which cases he can _and Aashrequireti. to A' hear and also as to JudgesV..$_ha:tt" constitute a Division Beneh,:"and..g'what' rutorki those Benches shalITdo."«--_In ofgthe said prerogative, right Justice of the Higl1a.__Cfourt::A_of€ V directed that cases shall be heard sitting at a ituucannot held to be 'tor nothing wrong in speciiyingv the new cigses arising from certain shall' "be filed at the particular circuit 'i-Beinchs as thos'e"'cases are to be heard and
-.decvicieo';, the Judges sitting at that Circuit '-T.1eénar_¢,..§ an arrangement is for =-..__adrriinfs[trative convenience and the advantage of the litigants. After all, the Courts are for the it '*~._benefit of the litigant public and hence their it 'convenience should be the paramount consideration. The impugned notification is a positive and concrete step to achieve the goal of iv 62 providing easy and tees expensive access 4' » justice.
29. From the aforesaid decisions, .it"is---- that '* the iaw on the point is wen settlecir of the Chief Justice to distribute Court, both judicial power to make roster exclusively iii Jiistice. The Chief Justice is_th.e He has full power. in the matter of ailocatioiiéof Court which flows not only from the pro:vi_siori'contajned in sub--section (3) of ""~S_ectipoi: of the 'A-ct;' but inheres in him in the very of The power to regulate the sittings of thexiodgest Division Courts of the High Court at 'places other than the place of the principal seat is in the iioqgestioned domain of the Chief Justice, the only "'--'VA:tco1_ic¥ition is that he must act with the approval of the ~ =VGoVernor. It is basically an internal matter pertaining to g'/, 63 the High Court. When he arranges sittings of V. Court at a place other than the place of C seat and assigns work of a particular 'area'rof-ithe' State"it does not amount to territoriai bifurcation Court. It is for the Chief Justice_V"to_VaI1ot-ii{o1:i§ judges and judges can do onlyjsuch to them.
Any order made a not placed before him by 'accordance with his directiox1s.'_V jurisdiction. The Chief Justice the jurisdiction of various judges of the court; can assign work to a judge and fiioivdecide case will be heard by two or more _fThe.4conferrnent of this power exciusively on the Ci:ief_.}usti(_:»e_ isriecessary so that various courts Work in
-Va co«ordinat'ed manner.
it is ; "3(}V.""I.t is in this background we have to see what is Cnotification issued by the Chief Justice at the time ofiarranging the work of the Circuit Benches of the LL/..
65 that cases arising from the Bagalkot, Bellary, Belgaum, Gaclag, Haveri, Uttara Kannada "
and Koppal will be heard and d.ecifded 'thew X. C Circuit Bench at Dharwad and cases o from the Districts of Bg'abur,.
and Raichur will be lla'nd"decided-- at ttte Circuit Bench been further resolved the above rrientio'ned::A__dis befransferred to the 'Bench before new cases at the» will be permitted from o%.o7';2O08,"sll C 'Iii. c~itcumstances, the Hon'ble Court of Karnataka has glleased to order that sitting of Judges Courts at the Circuit Benches at l ' ._.4:ll)harwc€:i«:liV:and Gulbarga will commence on O7- ll(;'i7-l2'«..()(V)8; that cases arising from the districts *=,of lBagalkot, Bellarg, Belgaum, Dharwad, Gadag, Haven', Uttara Kannada - Karwar and Koppal will be heard and decided at the Circuit Bench at Dharwad; that cases arising from the Districts of Bidar, Byapur, Gulbarga \a/ Act, dire'ct--ed that a Judge and Division Courts gshagli'ealso:'e.it~ ;at'--cAurangabad. Arranging the work, making stand constitution of Benches is the prerogative of the Chief if tfziiistice, The jurisdiction of these Courts to hear matters are ' statutorily regulated by Section 51 of the Act as well as the C' "constitutional provisions. When the field is covered by the 67 mentioned Districts are transferred to the respective Bench before 7.7.2008. Thirdly, filing of new H Circuit Benches was also permittedwfrom an arrangement made by the Chief pending cases and the hearingékof the_:cz3.ses future. This is well within his jiin§a:¢eofi'_~.V_1i'i1e1n§£i1:fig but arranging a roster. arehconstituted by virtue of the power Chief Justice by sub-sectiony» Section C The Apex Court in the " .'. si?13iniRAo PURANIK has categoijicaflvy' is._WnovtvterI'itori.al bifurcation of the because the Chief Justice by the impugned ord.egr'V-.issvuedttunder Sub--Section {3} of Section provision i'crj_ hearing of cases arising from those Districts la//i 69 have been defeated. The Word H because of the order of the Chief Justice as I the circular a litigant could file at ~the_"
Benches. However, the litigants of---Atfhose Dliistificts ai4ea 2' not prevented from filing thei1f"e..ase befcre the Pitincipal Bench nor the PrincipalSenchesi" §u1fains:1%ictionA to decide such case is taken awayV_by._tl1fe of the Chief Justice. H 2
31.». """ 'o'f*a'judge to hear a case according to by the Chief Justice should notllijef c'onf'use-dd with the jurisdiction of the High '2"-Couirt' to decideH"ti*1e" case on merits, including the teirifitorial jurisdiction, which are governed by Article the Constitution and other statutory 2' ' * ' ~ . provisions'.
" -. In this context, it is necessary to have a look if a_tr§Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 226 reads as " under:
5/.
70 Power of the High Court to isstrefl certain writs- __ (1) Notwithstanding ,.a1j:ythihg"'*-iii; t Article 32, every have power throughout it-i1e'Vterrito.ifies ° in relation to which it '..eXercf;se's jurisdiction, to issue person" org authority, V ~ .Vyjvai3'propriate cases,_ any those territtcs-i:¢«5 Writs, ':ti1e' nature of ..... ;; . mandamus,
-qua j warranto and u of them, for the _v erifo1'Cer;71eAn_t any of the rights coufei~regi__by Part III and for any other it .,(Z_2}f.t'Vv'v»*:The power conferred by ctauseii) to issue directions. ORDERS OR WRITS TO ANY Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause 5/, 73 "When an order, however, is passed by it a Court or Tribunal or an executive"----"
authority, whether under provisions ofva statute or otherwise, a part"'o'J=*7.cavise,4ofVI.'4 action arises at that place; :?3ve5n 1'.'1"U--_" it given case, when the .or'igiI1aI"authority"'is; constituted at one and Vthe appellate/revisional constituted at arLotI1ei',__§a,v would be maintainabie v_ as order O4_bIAi§ "-- y 1: " '---authority of action, a maintainable in the High 'Court:iuiihlivriévhxise jurisdiction it is situate having to the fact that the ~'5:,orderv of 't'h3.._.QLppe11ate authority is also it required,to be set aside and as the order it o'fVigmal authority merges with that b A of,:appe1late authority."
A. 'Although in view of Section 141 of CPC the l tirovisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Sec.20(c} of CPC and cl.(2) of Article 226 being in part materia, the decisions of the 74 Supreme Court rendered on interpretation_Qf4* A. V Section 20[c) CPC shall apply to the l proceedings also. In _th,.€__ c:fo§~ese[i1;z V NAVEENCHANDRA N.MAJ1'TH1A fsi j (AIR 2000 so 2966), the saplrene ' % observed that the collocoltioln of the 'cause of action ;.0hollyVAi.or:'--~partl arisesyili seems to have _lyl'i:ecEj_» 20 CPC which sectionv:'_also._ll the jurisdictiona«lL:VI'as}';=ect ef The judicial" 'accorded almost a uniforni" V V" the said I 3' equally applies while 'inter'pi*eltirtcj*~s_ub<:clause (2) of Article 'll':heV Supreme Court in the case of .N.MAJITHIA .115. STATE or A . (AIR 2000 so 2966), held that:
2 3 'The power conferred on the High A' -Courts under Article 226 could as well be I exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which "the cause of action, wholly or i 76 the courts. As per that section the suit could be instituted in a court within the legal limits of whose jurisdiction the 'cause of wholly or in part arises'.
pronouncements have accor_ded_ alrnoslt l uni orm interpretation to compendious expression _even'.prz'or toaihe ' Fifteenth Amendment of 'the"iConstit1_1_iion.= l to mean the bundle of facts "L_:uJhic.h it luJou.Id'E be necessary for" lprove, if traversed. in order...to.,hs:uppor:t his, rig?hti"to the cdurtr _ V the expression 'causeof tsillgenerally understood to mean a «situation or state of facts that entittlesza partyto maintain an action in a l "cou.rtioriVa't,ribunal: a group of operative facts to one or more basis for suing: a ""';fac{tu'at""situation that entitles one person to _ a remedy in court from another V' . _ 'person.' 113/. n 78 lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the"
cause of action into consideration albeit» without embarking upon an enquiry the correctness or otherwise of' facts. The territorial A decided on the facts pleaded inthe petition; it the truth or otherwise""vs«o:j:"'~.the i made in the petition being"irrtmaterial.
87. The Supreme UNION OF INDIA .vs. LT:Di?."{2Q62} 1 sec 567:
AIR 2002 so 3 'The be satisfied from the __entire faC'ts..l_pleaded in support of the cause thatwthose facts do constitute a l " t empower the court to decide a has, at least in part, arisen its jurisdiction. Each and every fact A. pleaded, ipso facto do not lead to the l conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with ii'/.
79 the lis that is involved in the case. which have no bearing with the lis dispute involved in the case, do not _t;iv"e"ris_';e l to a cause of action so as to Vconferzi';erritorial"w~ jurisdiction on the courtconcerned;--' The Supreme in t}1le"ce_se of? NATIONAL LTDVV.
.Vs. HARIBOX 786:
AIR 2004 SC ,1 993} .§hst::.ll'cause of action.' 2 in-V civil in :proceedings means fact traversed, would to prove in order' to a judgment of the th.e}bundle of facts which with law applicable to them gives plaintiff aWr1'ght to relief against the l V Each and every fact pleaded in petition does not ipso facto lead to conclusion that those facts give rise to a A. cause of action within the court's territorial * jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis or dispute involved in the case. 81
38. The jurisdiction of the High dependent on the Cause of action, arising within its jurisdiction.
conferred on the High Court byathelColri--stitutiori and statutes passed by or} state Legislature. The action; is well known. The expression. means the bundle of prove, if traversedito in his favour by the ._ if traversed, would be necessary prove in order to support his to a of the court. It is a bundle of taken with the law applicable to them, gives to relief against the defendant. In 'legal it parlance, the expression 'cause of action' is llgenerailyfll understood to mean a situation or state of that entitles a party to maintain an action in a lfzcourt or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis for suing; a factual situation that 82 entities one person to obtain a remedy in the court another person. Each and every fact pleaded to petition does not ipso facto lead to a concl,ii's.ion::that"
those facts give rise to a cause__ of ,.action 1 vvh-icii"'~-itheid court's territorial jurisdictioniiounlessl those facts; pleadiedl with the lis or dispute involve_d'in the cas.eo,: Ho The facts which have no bearingzofwith the dispute involved in the case, do.'1'10t- give rise to clause of action so as to confer 5;jte~rritoria}.V.. jui'is.:iiction on the court coricerri--ed.__ --Th'e?'.te_ifritoi*iai..§_;;ifi.sdiction must be decided on the .-- petition, the truth or otherwise. of theaverrnent made in the petition being immaterial. confer jurisdiction on a court even if a plarthotf of action arises within its jurisdiction, it is lulsiiificient. It is purely a question of fact. The ditigant has the right to go to a Court where part of 'W--'ca"nse of action arises. In such cases. it is incorrect to to that the litigant chooses any particular Court. The choice is by reason of the jurisdiction of the Court being 84 2001 SUPREME COURT 416), the Apex cour_t...§iié;;t1:§>:Vg VA specifically with similar matter held as L1I1d€1.'V'H2 ' an 'The expression similar'; one 'A _ h' respect of cases arising in «. "
used in para 2 of came up for the conside4r"at.ion_» of Judges Bench of State Transport AIR 1976 SC_ _. V'c'ontext of division- between Allahabadi. it in U ttar it{?rrhi§€,Ccurt.:'fLeld'..hiporas 36, 37 and {expression "cause of _actio.n" in A. application under Art. 226 's"iooEL}}td. as expression is understood ' cause of action arose because of ".."theVap'p_eiiate order or the reuisional order to be passed at Lucknow there .. ,_'Luc}cnow would have jurisdiction though the it * original order was passed at a place outside the areas in Oudh. It may be that the original order was in favour of the person applying for a writ. In such case an adverse 86 The Court will find out in each case whethe.r_Ji.lV": A the jurisdiction of the Court is rxghytlyv attracted by the alleged caus§?»0f_C¥Clican"' " " 'J 4' "the expression "cause Qf action" "with «. " '' regard to a civil matter that it be left to the litigant to___4_in=S:litute Lucknow Bench' Bench according to the _.€«tt:lV3'£"iI'fl~.lbb__(g1rising wholly or part areas.
If the Larisejsr within Oudh ms; t;i;c'ikrl§;»ii§ Bench will by' the cause of the specified cneaskui(huflithen.AUahabad ufifl have yfijurisdrctiolrii the cause of action in part jvinythe Oudh areas and part of of actin arises outside the L' . it will be open to the litigant the case appropriately to attract the A. jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at = Allahabad."
"Applications under Article 226 will similarly lie either at Lucknow now or at Allahabad as the applicant will allege that k/ 87 the whoie of cause of action or part of thef cause of action arose at Lucknow within-*.thev V:
specy"ied areas of Oudh or part..of the of action arose at a place 'i specified Oudh areas." _ "The Chief Justice Court not been conferred. Vb"th_e.vVVb"iegisiative competence to define~i.'cav;i523:'Vor to declare be "ate-en'iec1« to have arisen_ 44 toi_ciy.. dotbn' artificial or deeming_ territorial case or class of Bench at Jaipur has been.iestab!_ishe.d by the Presidential V' Qbrder issuedfunder sub-Section (2) of S5} of Thewterritorial jurisdiction of the Bench at Jaipur is to be %e§cer¢zs-gdim respect of the cases arising in 4the.spe'cified districts. Whether the case A. frorn one of the specified districts or b so as to determine the jurisdictional competence to hear by reference to territory bifurcated between the principal seat and the bench seat, shail be an issue to be]: in/.
89 substance in this contention as well. . purpose of the Presidential order is to carvetyoutv and define territorial junisdictionh 'between' principal seat at Jodhapur and Bench seat at Jaipur. The cases:a__re'"to be = it accordingly unless the Chief Justicey it exercise in his discretion the«_pou:er vested in} him by the proviso. fa._parae.2--_of~'ti_ie.V Presidential order. Clauses (1) r Af:::_22:6 ./of the Constitution provide. ""ho--u:J" jilnisdiction shall it by ljfarfiyl" 'mgh Court. Althoitgjh not deal with principallor 'per.rnanent"fBench of any r:olli~t?au.lfi'~:;:' opinion, there is no reason . why iyvljjrmciple underlying thereunde_r 'cannotwl be applied to the "of ---- bifurcated territorial jur'isdiction.__betLveen the principal seat and
-perrrt5_;ner'i.t"Bench seat of any High Court. In ' A a dispute arising whether an ind.ioidual case or cases should be filed and it it heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to bible found out by applying the test ~ from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen the then exercising the 92
41. The Chief Justice of High Court has .
conferred with the legislative competenicel"to_jV.define cause of action or to declare to have arisen so as to lay test for determining territoria-ii"'jurisdictio11....oxglar an individual case or c1ass4"olf_'cases,:' of a Circuit Bench,__ not lose its jurisdiction the entire State. When cionsvtituted and the Chief Justice Circuit Benches would decide. 1sC'on1y-.tp{--.¢nabié the litigant who fall within ;,:"'the area such lC'ir'cuVit Bench to have the benefit of C "rearing. nearer to his place of residence. It is the of the litigant which is the paramount R"'~.__consideration. By constitution of such Circuit Benches it nth.-e"-litigant is not prevented from approaching the
-Pr_incipa.l Bench. If he so chooses to do, the choice is of "the litigant. If the Chief Justice were to hold a litigant at/, 104 be placed before the Bench which passedwthe sought to be reviewed, as this Berieh jurisdiction to hear and decigiehthe re'auie.wfp'eii1£:iori;
(iii) The Hon'ble ChiefJusti'r:_e--~§hal"lAcenstituiel;heH13e3n¢h = to hear the review petit_ior§~[jvIi§c. 344 of 2009 filed for ree£1I1'ing"--thV¢'Qréiereiafed 27-05-2009) in accorgiahce Karnataka High Court RiL_lee; ~ __ _