Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6323 of 2008. Case: Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs Chhabi Nath and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6323 of 2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Adv and For Respondents: Madan Sharma, Vijay Kumar Pandita, Asha Upadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay, Advs. |
| Judges | Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. |
| Issue | Criminal Proceure Code - Section 144 |
| Citation | 2009 (57) BLJR 1817 , JT 2009 (6) SC 511 , (2009) 5 SCC 616 , 2009 (5) UJ 2253 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | April 15, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Ganguly, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is an order dated 12.10.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, whereby the learned Judge interfered in a writ petition with the proceedings which were pending before a Civil Court.
3. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the appellants on 16.5.2005 filed a Civil Suit being No. 462 of 2005 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaunpur, for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the disputed land. In that suit, an application seeking temporary injunction (numbered 6C) was also filed. It appears that initially the trial court issued notices to the defendants but did not grant any ad interim ex parte injunction.
4. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed a civil revision being C.R. No.246 of 2005 before the District Judge, Jaunpur and that was admitted by the learned District Judge and an order of maintenance of status quo was passed till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction - (Application No. 6-C). It was also observed by the District Judge that after the plaintiff's suit is decided, the revision petition would become infructuous.
5. Against the said order, the defendants-respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court (Writ Petition No. 4215 of 2005) and the same was dismissed by the High Court. It appears that the said application for temporary injunction No. 6-C was renumbered as No.58-C. Thereafter, by an order dated 9.11.2005, interim application for injunction- 6-C/58-C was allowed on merits by the learned Single Judge, Jaunpur. Being aggrieved thereby, the defendants-respondents filed Misc. Civil Appeal being No. 198 of 2005 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jaunpur. The said civil appeal was heard by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jaunpur and the same was allowed and the order dated 9.11.2005 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court with a direction to re-hear the said application No.6-C. It was further directed that the parties were to appear before the trial court on 25.11.2006 and the trial court was directed to dispose of the application without granting unnecessary adjournments. On 5.2.2007, the trial court was however pleased to dismiss the application No. 58-C as according to the trial court, the order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Jaunpur became infructuous by the effect of the order dated 4.11.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jaunpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 198 of 2005. Against the said order of the trial court i.e. 5.2.2007, the appellants preferred a revision before the Addl. District Judge, Jaunpur and it was numbered as Civil Revision No. 39 of 2007, which was allowed by an order dated 5.9.2007. Against the said order dated 5.9.2007, the respondents filed a writ petition, in which the impugned order was passed which is challenged before this court in this appeal.
6. In the impugned order, the Hon'ble High Court after noting the earlier stages of the proceedings held that the revision court committed an error in remanding the matter to the trial court for disposal of the application No. 58-Ga, when in fact the said application became infructuous. By saying so, the High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the impugned order of the District Jugge cannot be sustained.
7. One of the grounds raised in this appeal before this court is, whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction can interfere with a judicial order passed by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
8. From the aforesaid narration of events, it is clear that the proceedings in this case arose out of purely civil disputes relating to property and the parties have filed suits before the Civil Court, and the suits are pending. The parties to the proceedings are all private individuals. Neither the State nor a State' nor an authority under Article 12 is a party to this proceeding. This is clear from the cause title of this appeal.
9. Now the question is, whether private individuals are amenable to the jurisdiction of writ court in connection with the private disputes relating to property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L.P.A. No. 521 of 2012. Case: Murliwala Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India. Jharkhand High Court
...19 of the Report). The correctness of that ratio was doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath ( (2009) 5 SCC 616) and a request to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for a reference to a larger Bench is pending. But insofar as the formulation of the principles o......
-
C.R.P. No. 70 of 2009. Case: Nirmalendu Dhar Vs Nani Gopal Ghosh. Guwahati High Court
...675: (AIR 2003 SC 3044); Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 1 SCC 376: (AIR 2009 SC 930); Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616: (2009 AIR SCW 4006) and M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes, AIR 2009 SC 1349. Further according to the respondent, there has not b......
-
Writ Petition Nos. 5775 of 2012, 722 of 2013 and Civil Revision Application No. 482 of 2012. Case: Walchandnagar Industries Limited Vs Indraprastha Developers and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
...of India. In a later decision of the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 616: [2009 ALL SCR 1765], a disagreement is expressed with the decision in Surya Dev Rai's case to the extent it laid down a legal proposition that the......
-
RAM KISHAN FAUJI vs STATE OF HARYANA . Supreme Court, 21-03-2017
...Shankar Patil21 and SameerSuresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal22.” 40. The ultimate conclusion arrived at in the said case isthat:- 18 (2009) 5 SCC 61619 AIR 1954 SC 21520 (2002) 1 SCC 31921 (2010) 8 SCC 32922 (2013) 9 SCC 35“27. … we are of the view that judicial orders ofcivil courts are n......
-
L.P.A. No. 521 of 2012. Case: Murliwala Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India. Jharkhand High Court
...19 of the Report). The correctness of that ratio was doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath ( (2009) 5 SCC 616) and a request to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for a reference to a larger Bench is pending. But insofar as the formulation of the principles o......
-
C.R.P. No. 70 of 2009. Case: Nirmalendu Dhar Vs Nani Gopal Ghosh. Guwahati High Court
...675: (AIR 2003 SC 3044); Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 1 SCC 376: (AIR 2009 SC 930); Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616: (2009 AIR SCW 4006) and M/s. M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes, AIR 2009 SC 1349. Further according to the respondent, there has not b......
-
Writ Petition Nos. 5775 of 2012, 722 of 2013 and Civil Revision Application No. 482 of 2012. Case: Walchandnagar Industries Limited Vs Indraprastha Developers and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
...of India. In a later decision of the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 616: [2009 ALL SCR 1765], a disagreement is expressed with the decision in Surya Dev Rai's case to the extent it laid down a legal proposition that the......
-
RAM KISHAN FAUJI vs STATE OF HARYANA . Supreme Court, 21-03-2017
...Shankar Patil21 and SameerSuresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal22.” 40. The ultimate conclusion arrived at in the said case isthat:- 18 (2009) 5 SCC 61619 AIR 1954 SC 21520 (2002) 1 SCC 31921 (2010) 8 SCC 32922 (2013) 9 SCC 35“27. … we are of the view that judicial orders ofcivil courts are n......