The court held that the appellant was barred from invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as he had earlier filed and lost a civil suit on limitation and jurisdiction grounds. Applying the Doctrine of election, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal is not inclined to be interfered with and is dismissed.
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 PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 2353 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.09.2012
Shiv Lal
...Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Present : Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the respondents.
ARJAN KUMAR SIKRI C.J.(Oral)
The appellant, who retired from military service long ago, is claiming disability pension.
Admitted facts are that the appellant had earlier filed a civil suit for declaration claiming that he was entitled to disability pension. This suit was dismissed, albeit, on the ground of bar of limitation and for want of territorial jurisdiction.
First appeal preferred there against was also dismissed. Seventeen years after the decision of the Civil Court, the writ petition was filed claiming the same relief which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 21.12.2009.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts, particularly when the appellant had availed remedy by way of filing a civil suit and was unsuccessful therein, it is not open for the appellant to invoke the extra
Letters Patent Appeal No. 2353 of 2011 (O&M)
[2]
ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Doctrine of election would apply in the matter like this. No doubt, the appellant could approach the Civil Court or the High Court. However, having chosen to avail the remedy provided in the Civil Courts, the appellant knew the limitation of availing this limited scope of remedy as well, namely, if the suit is filed, the question of limitation in such a suit would arise. Once that suit is dismissed, other remedy is foreclosed and is barred even on the principle of resjudicata. We are, therefore, not inclined
to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and on this ground alone the appeal is dismissed.
(ARJAN KUMAR SIKRI) CHIEF JUSTICE
24.09.2012
'ravinder'
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant barred from Civil Court remedy can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Whether the Doctrine of election applies when a party exhausts civil court remedies first.
Whether the appeal should be allowed given the barring of res judicata and election.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shiv Lal
Union of India and others
Arjan Kumar Sikri
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
