Supreme Court: Judicial Orders Of Civil Courts Not Amenable To Certiorari Writ Under Article 226; Can Be Questioned In Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227

The Supreme Court reiterated that the Judicial Orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising from an Order of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, by which a Writ Petition was allowed and the District Judge’s Order was set aside by remanding the case to the Small Causes Court.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, “The scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.”

The Bench said that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.

AOR T. R. B. Sivakumar represented the Appellant, while AOR Anagha S. Desai represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A civil suit was instituted by the Appellant against the Respondents for possession under Section 16(1)(g) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Summons were served upon the Defendants but they did not appear. Vide an Order, the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte against them. Thereafter, the Defendants applied for recall of such Order. The Application was allowed and they filed their Written Statements. During the proceedings, the Advocate who represented the Defendants applied for deletion of the name of the third Defendant from the array of parties, which was rejected and in between, he submitted pursis informing the Court that he has not been provided instructions by his clients despite letter sent to them.

However, the suit proceeded, Plaintiff’s evidence was recorded and the suit was decreed. Defendants preferred an Appeal against the Trial Court’s Judgment under Section 34 of the 1999 Act. The main ground urged on behalf of the Defendants was that they were not given adequate opportunity to present their case in as much as when their counsel had submitted pursis, claiming no instructions, Court ought to have served a notice on them to engage another counsel to represent their case. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and therefore, a Petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227. The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s Order and remanded the case for decision afresh. Being aggrieved, the Appellant was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “The only issue that fell for consideration of the High Court was whether, on account of defendants’ lawyer’s pursis, claiming ‘no instructions’, the trial court ought to have proceeded to decide the suit without ascertaining whether the defendants were duly informed about lawyer’s withdrawal from the case.”

The Court elucidated that the power under Article 227 may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the Court or Tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.

“Therefore, in our view, once the appellate court took into consideration all relevant aspects including the fact that pursis (Exh.42) did not seek withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, and withdrawal was not even permitted, there was no such jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India”, it remarked.

The Court said that the High Court without any justification went on to consider the procedure prescribed for withdrawal of Vakalatnama when neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal.

“In such circumstances, the entire exercise of the High Court was misconceived. More so, when the view taken by the appellate court that defendant cannot take advantage of his own wrong was a plausible view based on materials available on record. Hence, in our view, appellate court’s order was not amenable to interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in interfering with a well-reasoned Order of the Appellate Court.

“As we notice that before the High Court except the aforesaid point no other point was pressed, and no other point arises for our consideration in as much as the evidence led by the plaintiff went unrebutted, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court”, it directed and concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the High Court’s Order.

Cause Title- Shri Digant v. M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1352)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advocates Rohit M. Sharma, Prashant R. Dahat, Sourabh Gupta, Puneet Yadav, Priya Mittal, Vasu Dev, and Akshansh Gupta.

Respondents: AOR Anagha S. Desai, Advocates Satyajit A Desai, Amit K. Pathak, Shrirang R. Bhongade, Sachin Singh, Pratik Kumar Singh, and Parth Johri.

Click here to read/download the Judgment