The court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed against an interim order of a Single Judge that stayed a writ petition. The bench held that special appeals lie only from final judgments and not from interim orders, specifically where the order relates to Article 226/227 jurisdiction.
Special appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 825 of 2019
Appellant :- Rashmi Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Srivastava,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.
-2-
in the case detailed in para 64 of judgment which reads as under :
“64. From the above discussions and looking into the provisions of U.P. Act No. 14 of 1962 as amended by Amendment Act of 1981 and Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952, special appeal is excluded from a judgment of one Judge of this Court in following categories :-
(i) Judgment of one Judge passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court.
(ii) Judgment of one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
(iii) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of its power of Superintendence.
(iv) Judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
(v) Judgment of order of one Judge made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award of a Tribunal, Court or Statutory Arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in State List or Concurrent List.
(vi) Judgment or order of one Judge made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award by the Court or any officer or authority made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act.”
(emphasis added)
-3-
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of Constitution in respect of any judgment or award by the Tribunal Court or Statutory Arbitrator and certain orders made by a Jude in exercise of the powers under Article 226 or 227 of Constitution, a Special Appeal has been held, barred. Para 15 of Full Bench judgment in Sheet Gupta (supra) , reads as under :
“Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:
1. The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court;
2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;
3. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court;
4. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;
5. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by
(i) the tribunal,
(ii) Court or
(iii) statutory arbitrator
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act. with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India;
6. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of
(i) the Government or
(ii) any officer or
(iii) authority,
-4-
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Order Date : 05.08.2019 Manish Himwan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a special appeal is maintainable against an interim order staying a writ petition passed by a Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 permits intra-court appeals from interim orders of Single Judges in writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and Ors Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and Ors.Followed¶11
(2003) 1 UPLBEC 496
Sheet Gupta vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶22
AIR 2010 All. 46 · Who else cites this
Abhishek Sahu vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Lucknow and Ors.Followed¶41
2014(11) ADJ 407
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rashmi Singh
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
