SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Kar) 106

Karnataka High Court
Judges : V.S.Malimath
GANAPATI LAXMAN SHET - Appellant
Versus
SITABAI KOM RAMDAS VERNEKAR - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 07/22/1976

The Tribunal is not a necessary party to a proceeding invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Article 227 - Writ Petition - The court held that the Munsiff and the District Judge are not necessary parties to the writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution and sought to amend the writ petition by deleting Article 226. The writ petition was not registered initially due to the non-impleadment of the Munsiff and the District Judge as respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court overruled the office objections and directed to register the writ petition, holding that the Munsiff and the District Judge are not necessary parties to the writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution.

Issues: Non-registration of the writ petition due to the non-impleadment of the Munsiff and the District Judge as respondents, and the invocation of the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court followed the decision in Muhammad Enamual Haque v. Muhammad J. Hossain, where it was held that the Tribunal is not a necessary party to a proceeding invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court directed to register the writ petition, overruling the office objections and holding that the Munsiff and the District Judge are not necessary parties to the writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution.

S. G. BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, on the request of Sri S. G. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, he has been permitted to amend the writ petition by deleting Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, it is clear in this writ petition that the petitioner has invoked only the provisions of Article 227.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has not been registered by the Office on the ground that the Munsiff and the district Judge of Karwar have not been impleaded as respondents, who are necessary parties to the writ petition.

( 3 ) IN the application filed by the respondent under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, for eviction of the petitioner before the Munsiff at Karwar, the petitioner raised the contention to the effect that he is not a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control act, 1961, but that he is an agricultural tenant governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Land reforms Act, 1961. Hence, two preliminary issues were framed by the learned Munsiff in this behalf on which findings recorded against the order was challenged of the Rent Control Act, 1961, before the District Judge at Karwar. The learned District Judge has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Munsiff. It is in these circumstances that the orders of the lower Courts have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3-A. The petitioner has invoked the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 which jurisdiction of this Court which is exercised under Section 115, C. P. Copde and similar provisions conferring revisional powers on this Court. No specific direction is sought against the munsiff and District Judge, in this case. No allegations of bias or mala fides have been made against the Munsiff or the District Judge.

( 4 ) IN Muhammad Enamual Haque v. Muhammad J. Hossain, (Civil Appeal No. 985/63 decided on 8-5-1964) (SC) the Supreme Court has held that to a proceeding invoking jurisdiction of the high Court under Article 227 of the Constitution the Tribunal is not a necessary party, and the failure to implead the Tribunal whose or der is challenged under Article 227, does not render the writ Petition defective.

( 5 ) FOLLOWING the said decision, I have to hold that the Munsiff and the District Judge are not necessary parties to the writ petition. Hence, the office objections are overruled and it is directed to register the writ petition.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top