In a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order declining a temporary injunction application, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition. The bench held that the subordinate court acted within its jurisdiction without committing manifest error, and thus no interference was justified.
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.
1
I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.636 of 2014
Satyanarain Sharma (Rajoriya)
Ver sus
The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pushkar & Ors.
Date of Order : : 7th March, 2014
HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA
Mr.Saransh Saini for the petitioner.
< > < > < >
BY THE COURT :
The plaintiff/ petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 8th January, 2014 passed by the learned Court below declining the application of the plaintiff/ petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC', for short), has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): -
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition in the interest of justice and: -
(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 8/ 1/ 2014 (Annex.6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Municipal Board may specifically be directed to follow strictly the due process of law in accordance with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court under the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2013, while removing the alleged encroachment;
(ii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court considers expedient, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner; and
(iii) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.”
2
“Therefore impugned judgment and decree dated 14-32012 by the first appellate court upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court passed on 25-8-2005 is set aside with the following directions: -
3
maximum number of adjournment each not more than three days would be only two in number as the matter relates to alleged encroachment over a public street. 6. In the event of non cooperation and non participation by the plaintiff before the Municipality to defend the show cause notice under Section 203 of the 1959 Act, the Municipality shall be free to proceed ex-parte and determine the show cause notice by a speaking and reasoned order.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.“
4
be taken. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord and the authorities of the Municipal Board are hand-in-glove in order to dispossess the plaintiff/ petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order dated 8th January, 2014, passed by the learned Court below declining the prayer for temporary injunction, is bad in eye of law and needs to be interfered with by this Court.
5
deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/ applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. In case of Abdul Razak (supra), their Lordships held thus: -
"(1) Amendment by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1-7-2002 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of
6
revision has been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction -- by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction -- by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has
7
chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/ or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the
8
High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case."
( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) , J.
Su n il/ P.A.
All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d g m en t / or d er h av e been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.
( Su n il Solan k i) P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned trial court erred in law by declining the prayer for temporary injunction against eviction.
Whether the impugned order suffers from patent error resulting in grave injustice warranting supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Razak (Dead) through LRs & Anr. Versus Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors.Referred¶37
Abdul Razak (Dead) through LRs & Anr. Versus Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors. : (2010) 2 SCC 432 · Who else cites this
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. RadhakrishnanReferred¶40
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 · Who else cites this
Surya Dev Rai v. Rams1Referred¶41
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 · Who else cites this
Satyanarain Sharma (Rajoriya)
The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pushkar & Ors.
Veerendrasingh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
