9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) as amended by the U.P. Amendment Act, 1978. 2. Whether a writ lies against a civil court's decision, particularly an appellate order passed by the District Court or an order passed by it in exercise of its revisionary power. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of Revision Petitions under Section 115, C.P.C. as Amended by U.P. Amendment Act, 1978 Provision and Interpretation: Section 115, C.P.C., as amended by U.P. Amendment Act No. XXXI of 1978, provides that the High Court may call for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court in original suits or other proceedings of the value of twenty thousand rupees and above, while the District Court may do so in other cases. The Full Bench in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh established two principles: 1. Revision lies only to the District Judge for orders made in suits valued at less than twenty thousand rupees, and no revision lies to the High Court against the District Judge's orders. 2. No revision lies to the High Court against an order made by the District Judge in an appeal if the suit is valued at less than twenty thousand rupees. Supreme Court Affirmation: These principles were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad and Sri Vishnu Awatar v. Shiv Awatar, which held that Section 115, as amended, assigns mutually exclusive jurisdiction to the High Court and District Court. Conflict with Qamaruddin's Case: In Qamaruddin v. Rasul Baksh, the Supreme Court, without noticing the U.P. Amendment, held that an order made under O. 39 R. 1 and 2 is appealable to the District Judge and amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115. This led to confusion regarding the state of law in U.P. Resolution by Larger Bench: The larger Bench concluded that the decision in Qamaruddin's case does not accurately state the law because it did not consider the U.P. Amendment Act and earlier decisions affirming the Full Bench's ruling. Therefore, the Full Bench decision in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, remains the correct interpretation. Issue 2: Whether a Writ Lies Against a Civil Court's Decision Supreme Court's View in Qamaruddin's Case: The Supreme Court in Qamaruddin's case opined that ordinarily, an interlocutory order passed in a civil suit is not amenable to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the aggrieved party has not exhausted remedies under the C.P.C. Exceptions to the Rule: The larger Bench acknowledged that while interlocutory orders are generally not subject to writ jurisdiction, exceptions exist where: - The order impugned violates fundamental principles of law. - The order causes substantial injustice to the aggrieved party. In such cases, the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked within the ambit of well-established principles. Mandamus to Private Individuals: The Bench reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless under a statutory duty to perform a public duty, aligning with the Supreme Court's view in Qamaruddin's case. Conclusion: Answer to Question 1: In the negative. The decision in Qamaruddin's case does not overrule the Full Bench decision in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dwarka Diesh, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Answer to Question 2: In the affirmative, but limited to situations where the impugned order violates fundamental principles of law and causes substantial injustice. The general principle that interlocutory orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction does not preclude the issuance of writs in such exceptional cases. Final Order: The papers are to be laid before the learned single Judge with this opinion and answer.
|
