V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in these proceedings seeks issuance of a writ of prohibition declaring that the 2nd respondent Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has no jurisdiction to entertain I. A. No. 203 of 88 filed by the Ist respondent.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts in brief are: The 1st respondent herein filed a suit against the writ petitioner and obtained a decree (i) for possession of the suit scheduled properties in the same condition as they were entrusted to the writ petitioner, subject to reasonable wear and tear, (ii) for mesne profits and (iii) for costs. When the matter was carried in appeal, while deciding the appeal and corss-objections filed, the High Court confirmed the first clause of the trial Court s decree, viz. , for possession of the schedule properties in the same condition as they were entrusted to the petitioner, and remanded the matter in so far as the 2nd clause pertaining to the mesne profits is concerned. Assailing the order of remand in so far as the mesne profits are concerned, the writ petitioner filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of remand decreed mesne profits at Rs. 10. 000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of decree and atrs. 12. 500/- per month from the date of decree till delivery of possession. The first clause of the decree granted by the trial Court has, thus, become final. The said first clause reads:"1. That the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the plaint A,b and C schedule properties with open Air Theatre, Service Rooms and Book Stall attached in the same condition, as they were, when entrusted to the defendant subject to reasonable wear and tear. "it is important to notice that pending the appeal before the Supreme Court the Ist respondent-plaintiff obtained delivery of the scheduled properties on 19-4-1972. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the writ petitioner filed an I. A. , for refund of the excess mesne profits paid and that was also ordered by the 2nd respondent. Pending that i. A. , the Ist respondent filed the impugned I. A. , ( LA. 203/88) for recovery of Rs. 8,45,019-56 paise on the ground that movables valued at Rs. 1,31,384/- were not at all delivered, that the furniture and fittings, though delivered, were in a damaged condition, the value of damages having been estimated at Rs. 4,43,616/-, unpaid telephone bills at Rs. 21,889-33 and also interest at contracted rate put at Rs. 4,87,717- 23, the total of which comes to Rs. 10,87,606-56 paise. Out of this the Ist respondent deducted a sum of Rs. 2,39,587/- (Rs. 1,00,000/- being the deposit and Rs. 1. 39. 587/- being the excess mesne profits paid by the writ petitioner), and made a net claim of rs. 8,45,019-56 paise.

( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the respective contentions of the parties in this background of the facts, it is germane to notice the principles governing the issue of writ of prohibition as laid down by the Supreme Court. In Govinda Menon vs. Union of India the Supreme Court observed:"the jurisdiction for grant of a writ of prohibition is primarily supervisory and the object of that writ is to restrain Courts or inferior tribunals from exercising a jurisdiction which they do not possess at all or else to prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction. In other words, the object is to confine Courts or tribunals of inferior or limited jurisdiction within their bounds. it is well established that the writ of prohibition lies not only for excess of jurisdiction or for absence of jurisdiction but the writ also lies in a case of departure from the rules of natural justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But the writ does not lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of an inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings. It is also well established that a writ of prohibition cannot be issued to a Court or an inferior tribunal for an error of law unless the error

Click Here to Read the rest of this document