The Patna High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal holding that an order by a Civil Court rejecting an application to reject a plaint is not amenable to Article 226 writ jurisdiction nor intra-court appeal under Article 227, citing Supreme Court precedents.
The Letters Patent Appeal was 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.909 of 2014 Arising out of
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7351 of 2010
=========================================================== 1. (i) Manju Devi widow of late lallan Prasad
(ii) Ranjit Kumar
(v) Anup kumar All (ii) to (v) are sons of late Lallan Prasad All residents of Mauza Raja Bazar, P.O. and Anchal Bihia, District Bhojpur.
Patna High Court LPA No.909 of 2014 dt.21-10-2016
2/5
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kumar Mritunjay Narain, Advocate
For the Respondent/s :
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 21-10-2016
The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 26th August, 2013 whereby an order passed by the Civil Court on 12th March, 2010 rejecting an application filed by the appellants for rejection of plaint remained unsuccessful.
The present appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 6th October, 2016, when the learned counsel for the appellants sought some time to examine the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported as (2015) 9 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Bench against an order by the Civil Court.
Today, learned counsel for the appellants contends that though the aforesaid judgment lays down that the judicial orders of
Patna High Court LPA No.909 of 2014 dt.21-10-2016
3/5
the Civil Court are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but since the appellants have invoked that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable. In any case, leave to appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court be granted against the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 26th August, 2013.
We do not find any merit in the arguments raised. Mere fact that the petition was titled as the one under Article 226 of the Constitution will not make a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. An order of the Civil Court as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath reported as (2015) 5 SCC 423 cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced here-in-below:
“29. Accordingly, we answer the question referred as follows:
29.1. Judicial orders of the civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction under Article 226.
29.3. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled.”
Considering the said judgment in Jogendrasinhji
Vijaysinghji (supra) the Court has held to the following effect:
“18. The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement makes it clear as day that an order passed by a civil court can only
Patna High Court LPA No.909 of 2014 dt.21-10-2016
4/5
be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the parameters of challenge have been clearly laid down by this Court in series of decisions which have been referred to by a three-Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam; (2015) 5 SCC 423, which is a binding precedent. Needless to emphasise that once it is exclusively assailable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-court appeal is maintainable.”
In view of the said fact, even though the appellants have
titled his petition before the learned Single Bench against an order dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint as the one under Article 226 of the Constitution, but still it has to be treated as an order in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, no intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
In respect of the argument that the appellants should be granted liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 26th August, 2013, we find that no such prayer can be entertained at this stage when the intra-court appeal is not maintainable. Still further, since the issue has been decided by an elaborate judgment in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji (supra), we do not find any question of law requires consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Patna High Court LPA No.909 of 2014 dt.21-10-2016
5/5
Consequently, the present Letters Patent Appeal is
dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/P.Kumar
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 28.10.2013
Transmission
Date
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order by a Single Bench dismissing a writ petition challenging a Civil Court order.
Whether an order rejecting an application for rejection of a plaint is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted in the absence of a maintainable intra-court appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of GujaratReferred¶37
Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi NathRelied on¶33
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423 · Who else cites this
Surya Dev RaiDistinguished¶36
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Manju Devi and Others
Girija Devi and Others
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
