Patna High Court: “Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226.” Directs Petitioners to Convert Writ Petition into Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

Court’s Decision:

The Patna High Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court allowed four weeks’ time for the petitioners to convert the present writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition in accordance with Rule 6 of Chapter IIIA of the Rules of the High Court at Patna. The Court directed the Registry to extend its cooperation for expediting the conversion process.

Facts:

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Munsif VIII, Buxar in Title Suit No. 198 of 1988. The impugned order rejected the petitioners’ plea under Section 4(1)(B) and Section 4(1)(C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, which stated that the suit had abated under the said provisions and should be dismissed as a preliminary issue.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether a judicial order passed by a civil court could be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioners argued that the order of the civil court should be considered abated as per the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act. They contended that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 and should be allowed.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents submitted that the petitioners’ reliance on writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was misplaced as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423, that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and are distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court discussed the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others (2015) 5 SCC 423, which established that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available against judicial orders of civil courts. It elaborated on the distinction between Articles 226 and 227, with the latter providing supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. The Court highlighted that Article 226 can only be invoked against authorities discharging public duties, not against judicial orders of civil courts.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423, which overruled the previous view laid down in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675. It emphasized that the ruling in Radhey Shyam delineated the scope of Article 227 for supervisory jurisdiction over civil courts, whereas Article 226 could not be used to challenge judicial orders of civil courts.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that in light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation, the present writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable. Instead, it needed to be converted into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227, which is the appropriate forum for challenging such orders. The Court acknowledged the procedural requirement under Rule 6 of Chapter IIIA of the Rules of the High Court at Patna, which mandates such petitions to be filed in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction.

Conclusion:

The Court granted the petitioners four weeks’ time to convert the present writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition and directed the Registry to extend its cooperation. The matter was ordered to be listed on a priority basis once the conversion was completed.

Implications:

This decision reinforces the distinction between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It clarifies that parties cannot challenge civil court orders through writ petitions under Article 226, thereby limiting the scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters. This ruling ensures that judicial orders are only reviewed under the appropriate supervisory jurisdiction provided under Article 227.

Also Read – Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Central Excise Demand Against Patanjali Foods Limited; Holds Demand Extinguished Due to Non-Inclusion in Insolvency Resolution Plan