Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.

Facts

The appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge to seek a permanent preventive injunction on the basis on his title and possession over agricultural land. Alongside, the appellant also sought ad interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Both the lower court and appellate court rejected the appellant’s injunction application. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 in the High Court to invoke writ jurisdiction seeking relief against the lower courts’ orders. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating it was not maintainable as the appellant sought an injunction against private respondents and such matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of writ petitions under Article 226.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

• Whether the amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in 1999 affect the High Court’s power to review interlocutory orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

Holding

It was held by the court that amendments of 1999 to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) did affect High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. Further it was clarified that interlocutory orders from subordinate courts, even though barred from revision under the CPC, but those can still be subject to challenge under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction (certiorari) and supervisory jurisdiction. It was explained that certiorari is used to correct jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts acting without or beyond their authority or in case of violating principles of natural justice. Supervisory jurisdiction ensures subordinate courts functions within their jurisdiction. The High Court cannot act as an appellate court when issuing a writ of certiorari or exercising supervisory jurisdiction. Such powers are discretionary and should be used with caution, only in suitable cases where instantaneous correction is necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in holding the petition as non-maintainable. The petition was restored for fresh hearing by the High Court along with costs.

Final Decision Appeal allowed

Ratio

Certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction do not address mere factual or legal errors unless manifest and self-evident.