Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] Patna High Court CWJC No.15728 of 2015(3) dt.10-09-2024 also observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Articles 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] by the referring Bench in para 32 quoted above. We make it clear that though despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded. Scope of Article 227 has been explained in several decisions including Waryam Singh v.
66. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Patna High Court CWJC No.15728 of 2015(3) dt.10-09-2024 Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.

28. We may also deal with the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the view in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] stands approved by larger Benches in Shail [Shail v. Manoj Kumar, (2004) 4 SCC 785 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1401] , Mahendra Saree Emporium (2) [Mahendra Saree Emporium (2) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481] and Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344] and on that ground correctness of the said view cannot be gone into by this Bench. In Shail [Shail v. Manoj Kumar, (2004) 4 SCC 785 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1401], though reference has been made to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] , the same Patna High Court CWJC No.15728 of 2015(3) dt.10-09-2024 is only for the purpose of scope of power under Article 227 as is clear from para 3 of the said judgment. There is no discussion on the issue of maintainability of a petition under Article 226. In Mahendra Saree Emporium (2) [Mahendra Saree Emporium (2) v. G.V. Srinivasa Murthy, (2005) 1 SCC 481] , reference to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is made in para 9 of the judgment only for the proposition that no subordinate legislation can whittle down the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. Similarly, in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344] in para 40, reference to Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] is for the same purpose. We are, thus, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent.

29. Accordingly, we answer the question referred as follows:

29.1. Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226. 29.3. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC Patna High Court CWJC No.15728 of 2015(3) dt.10-09-2024 675] is overruled.