Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
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 Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] and in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7762 of 2014 dt.25-11-2024
7/11
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.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors on 15 April, 2009
27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial
orders of civil courts are not amenable to a
writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are
also in agreement with the view [Radhey
Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616]
of the referring Bench that a writ of
mandamus does not lie against a private
person not discharging any public duty.
Scope of Article 227 is different from
Article 226.
Shail vs Manoj Kumar And Ors on 29 March, 2004
Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] , the
same is only for the purpose of scope of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7762 of 2014 dt.25-11-2024
9/11
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.
M/S Mahendra Saree Emporium vs G.V. Srinivasa Murthy on 27 August, 2004
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.
Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil ... vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2005
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.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Waryam Singh And Another vs Amarnath And Another on 19 January, 1954
Scope of
Article 227 has been explained in several
decisions including Waryam Singh v.
Amarnath [AIR 1954 SC 215 : 1954 SCR
565] , Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir
[(2002) 1 SCC 319] , Shalini Shyam Shetty
v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC
329 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] and Sameer
Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal
[(2013) 9 SCC 374 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ)
345] . In Shalini Shyam Shetty [(2010) 8
SCC 329 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] this
Court observed: (SCC p. 352, paras 64-67)
"64. However, this Court unfortunately
discerns that of late there is a growing
trend amongst several High Courts to
Patna High Court CWJC No.7762 of 2014 dt.25-11-2024
6/11
entertain writ petition in cases of pure
property disputes. Disputes relating to
partition suits, matters relating to
execution of a decree, in cases of dispute
between landlord and tenant and also in
a case of money decree and in various
other cases where disputed questions of
property are involved, writ courts are
entertaining such disputes. In some cases
the High Courts, in a routine manner,
entertain petitions under Article 227 over
such disputes and such petitions are
treated as writ petitions.