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

1999 Supreme(Raj) 734

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Shiv Raj V. Patil,B.S. Chauhan,Bhagwati Prasad
Narayan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 3860 of 1990
Decided On : 11/04/1999

Advocates Appeared:
S.N. Sharma, for the Appellant
H.N. Calla, for Respondents

The appellate court has the same powers as the original court, including the power to admit a writ petition.

Headnote:

ADMISSION OF WRIT PETITION - REMAND BY DIVISION BENCH - POWER OF DIVISION BENCH TO DIRECT ADMISSION - APPLICABILITY OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDINANCE, 1949 - SECTION 18 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES, 1952 - RULE 55 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - SECTIONS 107, 117, ORDER 41 RULE 33.

Fact of the Case:

A writ petition was dismissed by a single judge. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case to the single judge for fresh consideration. The Division Bench also directed that the writ petition be treated as admitted. The single judge referred the question of whether the Division Bench could direct admission of the writ petition to a Full Bench.

Finding of the Court:

The Full Bench held that the Division Bench could direct admission of the writ petition. The Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was applicable to appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, and that the appellate court had the same powers as the original court, including the power to admit a writ petition.

Issues: Whether the Division Bench could direct the single judge to treat the petition as admitted.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Division Bench could direct admission of the writ petition because: * The CPC was applicable to appeals filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. * The appellate court had the same powers as the original court, including the power to admit a writ petition. * Rule 55 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, which provides that writ petitions should ordinarily be admitted by a single judge, did not prohibit the Division Bench from directing admission of the writ petition.

Final Decision: The Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative and held that the Division Bench could direct admission of the writ petition.

Judgment

1. Thewrit petition preferred by Narayan Lal petitioner was dismissed by the learned single Judge after hearing petitioner’s counsel by a speaking Judgment and order dated 7-9-1990.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the petitioner preferred a D. B. Civil Special Appeal against the said Judgment and order dated 7-9-1990. The Division Bench after hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the amendment to the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules. 1974 had not been considered by the learned single Judge and the matter had been disposed of by merely considering the unamended rule though amendment to the said rule was having a bearing on the issue and, thus, the Judgment of the learned single Judge deserves to be set aside. The Division Bench set aside the Judgment and order dated 7-9-1990, admitted the writ petition and remanded the case to the learned single Judge for deciding it afresh.

.3. When the matter came up for consideration of the learned single Judge, it was observed by the learned Judge that “I am of the opinion that it is a prerogative or privilege of a Judge before whom the matter is placed and only he has to decide whether to admit the matter or not?” and framed the following question for adjudication by full Bench:

.“Can the Division Bench, while remanding the matter to the learned single Judge, direct the single Judge to treat the petition as admitted?”

.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of Section 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Code’), the provisions of the Code are applicable to the Letters Patent Appeals, in the present context a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter called as ‘the Ordinance’). Section 117 of the Code reads as under :-

.117. Application of Code to High Courts.--Save as provided in this Part or in Part X or in rules, the provisions of this Code shall apply to such High Courts.

.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that neither in Part X of the Code or in the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Rules of 1952’) framed by the Rajasthan High Court, there is any provision which restricts the application of the Code to the appeals filed under Section 18 of the Ordinance. Once the Code is made applicable to the appeals filed under Section 18 of the Ordinance, the powers of an applicable Court as contained in Section 107 of the Code come into play. Sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Code reads as under:--

.“(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.”

.6. This section provides that the appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties, as are conferred by this Code, on Courts of original jurisdiction. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that whatever are the powers of the original Court, are the powers of the original Court, are the powers of the appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code which read as under:--

.“33. Power of Court of Appeal.--The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or make and to pass or made such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court not with standing that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees, in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or

























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