Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bench of Sheel Nagu, J., seeking a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land, where they suffered dismissal of application under Order 13 Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code by the trial Court as well as the appellate court.

It was submitted that despite prima facie case being in favour of plaintiffs due to the fact that revenue record showed the plaintiffs being in possession of land in question, the Courts below were found to have gravely erred in law in holding otherwise. It was found by the order of Trial Court that there was no documentary evidence available on record demonstrating that plaintiff had the possession of the suit property at the time of institution of suit. Court found it evident that plaintiffs failed to show a prima facie case in their favour thus, no need to look upon the aspects of the balance of convenience and irreparable loss was warranted before the trial court and appellate forum.

High Court was of the view that if the plaintiff raises a fair question as to the existence of the legal rights claimed by him then a temporary injunction can be granted after a prima facie case is established. In view of the aforementioned, the exercise of discretion by trial and appellate Court were not showing any jurisdictional error. As the view taken by trial and appellate court should not have been taken in the given facts and circumstances and merely because a different view was possible was not a good ground to interfere in the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, this petition was dismissed. [Ram Singh Rawat v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 409, dated 28-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.K. Rath, J., dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which challenged the order by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Puri whereby the trial court allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC and directed the defendants to begin first.

The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition. The defendants filed a written statement stating that the said property was renovated and developed by their father and after the death of their father, they became the exclusive owners of the suit property. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC for a direction to the defendants to begin first. Defendants filed an objection to the same. The trial court allowed the application. This gave rise to the question that hinged for consideration that as to whether the defendants shall begin first?

The Court, while relying on the case of Rama Krushna Mohanty v. Bala Krushna Mohanty,2017 SCC OnLine Ori 450, and on Order 18 Rule 1 CPC, held that the defendants should begin first. Only when the defendants lead some evidence in proof of their case, the plaintiff shall be obliged to lead evidence in rebuttal. [Shradhamani Panda v. Chintamani Panda,2018 SCC OnLine Ori 420, decided on 19-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of H.G. Ramesh, J. while hearing a civil writ petition against an interlocutory order of the trial court in a suit pending between petitioner and respondent, held that the supervisory jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 can be exercised only if the inferior court has not proceeded within its jurisdiction.

In the instant case, in a suit pending between petitioner and respondent, the trial court passed an interlocutory order allowing the respondent/ plaintiff to produce certain documents through secondary evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ defendant preferred the present writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court.

The Court examined the law with respect to jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and relied on the judgment of  Apex court in Raj Kumar Bhatia v Subhash Chander Bhatia, (2018) 2 SCC 87 to hold that supervisory jurisdiction conferred on High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction.

Having regard to facts of the case, the court declined to entertain the instant writ petition. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Court as provided under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited v. Shankar Construction Company, WP (C) No. 46389 of 2015, decided on 05-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajeev Misra, J., dealt with this petition which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where a summoning order under Sections 323, 504, 379, 427 and 452 IPC, criminal revision petition and any proceedings arising out of them were prayed to be quashed.

Petitioner had made contentions on factual basis pleading that he had been falsely implicated. Various cases were referred before the Court which elucidated in length the legal aspects evolved with regard to matters where proceedings can be quashed. Cases, where allegations made against accused or investigation was done by investigating officer, do not show any offence committed by accused or the allegations seems absurd, or extremely improbable, or where prosecution is legally barred, or the criminal proceeding is found to be made maliciously with motive of grudge can be quashed.

The Court observed that as per the submissions of petitioner, adjudication was required on the question of facts and even the question of law coming therein can be adjudicated by the trial court itself. Court found no reason to quash the summoning order, complaint or any other proceedings arising out of them. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. [Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine All 1166, order dated 23-08-2018]