Patna High Court Reiterates That Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Are Not Amenable to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution

Court’s Decision:

The Patna High Court reaffirmed that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court directed the petitioner to convert the present writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition, as the matter could be addressed only under Article 227. The court granted four weeks’ time for the petitioner to make this conversion.

Facts:

The petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of an order dated 05.02.2016, passed by the Subordinate Judge-Vth, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No. 96/97. The petition under Order VI Rule 17 was filed for amending the plaint to add a necessary party — the purchaser of the suit property. However, the Subordinate Judge rejected this petition on the grounds that the plaintiff’s points were not adequately considered, terming the order as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The petitioner argued that the amendment was crucial as the new party was an essential participant in the dispute and a decision could not be reached without including them.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether judicial orders of a civil court could be challenged under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether Article 227 was the appropriate recourse.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioner contended that the order of the Subordinate Judge was arbitrary and unconstitutional, as the judge failed to consider the merits of the amendment application adequately.
2. The petitioner highlighted that without the presence of the purchaser as a party, the suit’s adjudication would be incomplete.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents did not make detailed submissions on this aspect, relying primarily on the jurisdictional principles set by the Apex Court.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed the distinct scope and application of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It reiterated the Supreme Court’s judgment in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, which categorically held that judicial orders of civil courts are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Patna High Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 227, which involves superintendence over all subordinate courts, is the correct remedy in such matters.

Precedent Analysis:

The court extensively referred to the judgment in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423, which clarified that while Article 226 cannot be used to challenge civil court orders, Article 227 has a distinct supervisory jurisdiction that can be invoked. It also overruled the previous judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675, which suggested otherwise. Other cases such as Shail v. Manoj Kumar and Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India were discussed to affirm this legal position.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the Patna High Court’s Rules were amended in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, directing that petitions under Article 227 challenging civil court orders should be filed under Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction, not as writ petitions. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is distinct and cannot be used to interfere with judicial orders passed by civil courts, which are amenable to appellate, revisional, or supervisory control under Article 227.

Conclusion:

The Patna High Court concluded that the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 and directed the petitioner to convert it into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition. The registry was instructed to facilitate this conversion, and the matter was to be listed on priority thereafter.

Implications:

This decision reiterates the limitations on using writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge judicial orders of civil courts, thus reinforcing the distinct roles of Articles 226 and 227. It serves as a reminder for litigants to carefully choose the appropriate jurisdictional remedy, ensuring that Article 227 is invoked for supervisory matters involving civil courts. This clarification helps prevent the misuse of Article 226 in purely private disputes and streamlines the procedural requirements for challenging civil court orders.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused for Alleged Involvement in International Drug Syndicate and Recovery of 1820 Grams of Heroin