Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.35 seconds)
Swami vs Ajendraprasad cites

Principal, S.V. Doshi Girls High School ... vs Lilaben Somabhai Gadasa on 9 January, 2008

11.2 This Court is quite aware with the fact that during the discharge of his judicial power and discretion, the competent judicial Court has passed the impugned order in a matter which is pending on his file and though at the first sight it appears that the said order is not bad for want of total lack of jurisdiction, but I am of the view that though at the first sight the impugned order dated 08/03/2013 appears very innocuous, but if the said action of the trial Court be allowed, it definitely gives wrong signal to the society, more particularly, when the dispute is directly related to Swaminarayan Sampraday of Vadtal Gadi, which also related to Gadhada, Junagadh Pradesh covered under the Vadtal Gadi. Under the above-referred circumstances, I am of the view that, so far as impugned order dated 08/03/2013 passed below exh. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002 is concerned, the trial Court concerned is required to be restrained, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been argued by the learned senior advocate for the respondents that as learned Senior Civil Judge, who has passed the impugned order has not been impleaded as party in this petition, the same is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this point, the Division Bench of this High Court, in Principal, S. V. Doshi Girls High School Vs. Lilaben Somabhai Gadasa, reported in 2012 (2) GLH 428 has put reliance on the observations made by the Full Bench in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 976. It is observed that, It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such a practice . In my view, the above observation is applicable to the case on hand.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 29 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999

11.3 It has also been argued by the learned senior advocate for the respondents that the Court should not issue a Writ of Prohibition as the petitioners herein, by impugned order dated 08/03/2013, have been called for hearing and they are yet to be heard by the learned trial Court and hence, this petition is premature. It is well settled that a Writ of Prohibition lies to prevent the trial Court for exceeding its jurisdiction. As referred above, the right / liberty granted by this Court to pray for rejection of plaint under O. 7 R. 11(a) of the Code at the subsequent stage has not been exercised by the respondents for more than 08 years or 13 years as referred above and by taking active part in the said proceeding, the respondents have practically waived their said right / liberty. Now, after recording of depositions of 35 witnesses of the petitioners / original plaintiffs, who have also been cross-examined by the respondents original defendants, the learned trial Court wants to put his leg suo moto in the shoes of respondents original defendants indirectly, which in my view, the learned trial Court cannot and under the circumstances, the action of passing suo moto order dated 08/03/2013 below exh. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the plaint be not rejected under the provisions of O. 7 R. 11(a) and Section 151 of the Code, is nothing but, in my view, the learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction at the belated stage, after approximately, 08 years or 13 years, as referred above and thus, the said belated action of passing the impugned order dated 08/03/2013 below exh. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002 of the trial Court concerned, is not tenable under the principles of res judicata.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 206 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next