9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1756 - HC - Indian LawsLawful Trustees/Board of Trustees of the Public Trust or not - Whether the proceedings before the learned Single Judge was initiated in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the proceedings in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? HELD THAT - The true nature and substance of the order of the learned Single Judge was to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no indication of the Court having exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such. Indeed, the learned Single Judge has opined in the judgment by fairly noting the fact that the writ petition filed by the respondent was under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge in the entire order reiterating the pleadings, issues and both oral and documentary evidence adjudicated before the learned District Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned order which clearly depicts that the learned Single Judge has exercised the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is clear that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the present appeal filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, is not maintainable. The writ appeal filed under the provisions of Section 4 of the High Court Act, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction exercised by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: I. Jurisdiction Exercised by the Learned Single Judge: The primary issue was to determine whether the learned Single Judge exercised original jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent filed a writ petition under both Articles 226 and 227 challenging the District Court's order, which had adjudicated on the appointment of trustees under Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. The Single Judge set aside the District Court's order and modified the declaration regarding trusteeship tenure. The High Court analyzed that the Single Judge's decision was based on points already adjudicated by the District Court, indicating the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The Court referred to precedents, emphasizing that the nature and character of the order, the type of directions issued, and the jurisdictional context determine whether the jurisdiction was under Article 226 or 227. The Court concluded that the Single Judge invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. II. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: The second issue was whether the appeal against the Single Judge's order was maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Section 4 allows an appeal against a judgment, decree, or order passed by a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction under the High Court's Act or any law in force. The High Court clarified that Section 4 does not provide for an appeal against an order passed under Article 227. The appeal is maintainable only if the Single Judge exercised original jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court noted that the Single Judge's order was based on adjudicating points already decided by the District Court, hence exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, making the appeal under Section 4 not maintainable. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Single Judge exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, and thus, the appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, was not maintainable. The Court reiterated that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and can only be scrutinized under Article 227. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
|
