Legal Reference Library

High Court of Calcutta Ganesh Chandra Paul v. Maya Paul and Ors. MANU/WB/0216/2017 03.04.2017 Property A Court cannot make a new case, not made out by parties in their pleadings Instant revisional application under Article 227 of Constitution of India, at instance of pre-emptor in a proceeding for pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is against judgment and order passed by District Judge. By judgment, Appellate Court held that pre-emption case filed by Petitioner under Section 8 of Act was not maintainable for incorrect description of suit land and dismissed pre-emption case of Petitioner. Supreme Court in case of Sheodhari Rai & Ors. v. Suraj Prasad Singh, and a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Jugal Kishore Kundu & Ors. v. Narayan Chandra Kundu, observed that it is settled law that, a Court cannot make a new case, not made out by parties in their pleadings and, as such, in absence of any pleading or defence set up by opposite part...

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rahul Jain Vs Smt. Namrata Jain has held that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. Such jurisdiction can be “exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice”, the court observed. The court upheld the order of trial court that dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to summon a particular witness in his divorce case.  The court found on the date the issues were framed in the divorce case the petitioner did not filed any list of witnesses nor made any request to summon a particular witness. Justice Vandana Kasrekar held the trial court has not passed the order “in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Ar...

In Tej Bahadur Thapa Vs. Branch Manager of District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Calcutta High Court held that under Article 227 of the constitution, the High Court has Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals. Thus even though the Consumer Protection Act mentions appeal against order of the State Forum to be done before the National Forum, the the revisional application is very much maintainable before High Court, particularly, when the Court is, prima facie, satisfied on the merit of the case that the finding arrived at by the State Commission is perverse.

Patna High Court has held that Division Bench of a High Court cannot exercise its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order made, in a suit, by a Single Bench of the High Court. Division Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice I.A. Ansari and Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh observed that single Judge or a single Bench of a High Court is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the High Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2016 =========================================================== ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE CHITRANJAN SAHAY VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. – MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .... .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. SHAURYA SUNIL, S/O SUNIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH CAV JUD...

Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227 – Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts – Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts – There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Page of REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2548 OF 2009 RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS CHHABI NATH & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH SLP (C) NO.25828 OF 2013 JAGDISH PRASAD .PETITIONER VERSUS IQBAL KAUR & ORS. .RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1. This matter has been placed before th...

14. The maintainability of writ petition in a matter of landlord-tenant dispute was considered by this Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329. In the said case, this Court noticed the scope of interference by the High Court in civil matters/private disputes under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant and where the only respondent is a private landlord. 15. Nature and scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by this Court in Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (2010) 9 SCC 385. In the said case, this Court held: .....The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India Jacky vs Tiny @ Antony & Ors on 9 April, 2014 Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Muk...