whether the view taken in Surya Dev Rai that a writ lies under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the civil court, which has been doubted in the reference order, is the correct view.= assailing an interim order of civil court in a pending suit, the defendant-respondent filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court and the High Court having vacated the said interim order granted in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, the appellant moved this Court by way of a special leave petition, inter alia, contending that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable against the order of the civil court and, thus, the impugned order could not be passed by the High Court.= Apex court held that "(i) Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction from jurisdiction under Article 226. Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled." - 2015 SC msklawreports

whether the view  taken  in  Surya
Dev Rai that a writ lies under Article 226 of the Constitution  against  the
order of the civil court, which has been doubted in the reference order,  is
the correct view.=

  assailing an interim order of  civil  court  in  a  pending  suit,  the
defendant-respondent filed a writ petition before the Allahabad  High  Court
and the High Court having vacated the said interim order granted  in  favour
of the plaintiff-appellant, the appellant moved  this  Court  by  way  of  a
special leave petition, inter alia, contending that the writ petition  under
Article 226 was not maintainable against the order of the civil  court  and,
thus, the impugned order could not be passed by the High Court.=

Apex court held that

  "(i)   Judicial  orders  of  civil  court   are   not   amenable   to   writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution;

(ii)        Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct  from    jurisdiction
from jurisdiction under Article 226.

Contrary view in Surya Dev Rai is overruled." - 2015 SC msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS