9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent No. 1 (writ Petitioner) in the Civil Court. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court of Kerala against the Appellant herein and other Respondents (local police authorities) seeking therein a relief of restoration of his possession over the flat in question. The Appellant contested the writ petition on various factual and legal grounds including raising an objection about the maintainability of the writ petition and the reliefs claimed therein. 6. By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the Appellant (Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) to restore the possession of the flat in question to Respondent No. 1 herein (writ Petitioner in the High Court) which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by Respondent No. 5 of the writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 1 herein against the Appellant pertained to possession of the flat. It is also not in dispute that one Civil Suit No. 807/2014 between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 in relation to the flat in question for grant of injunction was pending in the Court of Munsif at Kozhikode. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 are private individuals and both are claiming their rights of ownership and possession over the flat in question on various factual grounds. 12. In the light of such background facts arising in the case, we are of the considered opinion that the filing of the writ petition by Respondent No. 1 herein against the Appellant herein Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan Pande v. Usha Rani, 1992 (4) SCC 61 and Dwarka Prasad Agrawal v. B.D. Agrawal, (2003) 6 SCC 230). 16. In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by Respondent No. 1 (writ Petitioner) in the Civil Court. 17. We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are unable to agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned order. 22. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, out of which this appeal arises, stands dismissed. 23. Liberty is, however, granted to the parties to file civil proceedings in the Civil Court for claiming appropriate reliefs in relation to the flat in question for adjudication of their respective claims. 24. We, however, make it clear that while prosecuting any civil/criminal proceedings by the parties, as the case may be, any observations and the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned order will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
