Dismissed

Shyam Sunder v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2019SAW/1391/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dividing Bench dismissed Special Appeal as non-maintainable under internal Rules of Court, referencing prior rulings that intra-Court appeals in matters of criminal jurisdiction are barred under Rule 134(i) of the Rules of 1952.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal is dismissed; Registry directed not to entertain appeals not filed under Rule 134(i) except with Court permission.

Shyam Sunder Vs the State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1391/2019

¶3

Shyam Sunder s/o Kishanlal, age 25 years, b/c Meghwal, R/o Digari, Tehsil & District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Children Rights, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶7

The Chairman, Children Welfare Committee, Department Of Children Rights, Near Gokul Ji Ki Piyau, Magara Punjala, Jodhpur.

¶8

The Superintendent, (Shishu/balika Grih), Department Of Children Rights (Bal Adhikarita Vibhag), Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal For Respondent(s) : ---

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

12/12/2019

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly pointed out that this matter is covered by the judgment passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in Hanuman Tank vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶15

[D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.107/2015 decided on

¶16

24.02.2015] wherein this Court held as under:

¶17

“4. A perusal of Rule 134(i) of the Rules of 1952, clearly shows that an intra-Court appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from judgment of Judges of the Court, is not maintainable, where the order is made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the High Court.

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[SAW-1391/2019]

¶20

5. An appeal from judgment of Judges of the High Court, as an intra-Court appeal, is thus not maintainable in the matters, where learned Single Judge has exercised powers of superintendence, or exercised criminal jurisdiction. We, thus, uphold the objection of the Registry that this Special Appeal is not maintainable.

¶21

6. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in pursuance to an order of remand, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, which was also an order passed in the Special Appeal, arising out of writ petition of the criminal nature.

¶22

7. We do not find that any objection was raised to the maintainability of the previous appeal, and thus, it was entertained and an order was passed in the Special Appeal, which was clearly not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952. The order, which was barred under Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952, is not precedent, nor it can be cited, to give jurisdiction to a Division Bench of the High Court, which it does not possess.

¶23

8. This Special Appeal, arising out of an order, passed in S.B.Criminal Writ Petition by learned Single Judge, in exercise of the powers on criminal side of the Court, is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

9. The Registry is directed not to entertain any Special Appeal, which is not provided, to be presented under Rule 134 of the Rules of 1952.If in future, any such appeal is filed, a defect on the maintainability of the appeal will be recorded, and the file will be returned to the Counsel. Such appeal shall not be listed before the Court for orders except where the Counsel mentions and obtain the permission of the Court.”

¶25

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

¶26

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶27

8-MohitTak/-

Shyam Sunder v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaravi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Anil Engineering through Proprietor Vs C.C.E. Jaipur-Ii and Ors.

M/S Jain Metal Components P Ltd. Vs U.O.I.and Ors.

Obelisk Composite Technology LLP Vs Union of India

Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayan Salvi Vs State Rural Deve.and Pan. Raj. and Ors.