The High Court of Rajasthan held that an appeal arising from the rejection of an application for impleadment by a Civil Court is not maintainable as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India citing precedent and only lies under Article 227.
The writ 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.
[2023/RJJP/012044]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 961/2022
----Appellants
Versus
[2023/RJJP/012044]
[SAW-961/2022]
(2 of 2)
Karauli.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
25/05/2023
Though the case is listed for orders on defects, we find that this appeal arises out of order dated 07.03.2022 passed by learned Single Judge wherein, rejection of application for impleadment vide order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Civil Judge Nadauti, District Karauli was under challenge. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey
Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 , the order passed by the Civil Court is not amenable to writ jurisdiction in Article 226 of the Constitution of India but only supervisory jurisdiction in Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be invoked. Therefore, the impugned order is essentially one under Article 227 and not Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For that reason, the writ appeal is not maintainable.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
CHARU SONI /35
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting impleadment is maintainable as a writ appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the matter should be addressed through supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 instead.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & OthersApplied¶34
Radhey Shyam & Another Vs. Chhabi Nath & Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 · Who else cites this
Bharatraj S/o Shri Moolchand
Gyan Singh S/o Shri Virdya
Subuddhi S/o Shri Ghasi
Ummed Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh
Rohitash S/o Shri Bansi
Mahendra S/o Shri Bansi
Anil Kumar Upman
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
