1) Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing order dated 17.10.2011 passed by Munsiff, Kathua in a case titled Gurdev Ram v. Surinder Singh (hereinafter for short as impugned order) by virtue of which preliminary issue was decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.

2) It appears that respondents have filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner seeking a decree against the petitioner not to interfere in Khasra No.5 measuring 2 kanals 6 marlas, Khasra No.8, measuring 9 kanals 11 marlas and Khasra No.36 measuring 17 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Chak Riju. The petitioner in his written statement took a specific plea that since the suit land is a land defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act and the same is in possession of the petitioner for the last more than 20/21 years. Issues were framed and issue No.1 was treated as preliminary issue and after hearing the parties, trial court vide its order dated 17.10.2011, decided the said issue against the petitioner and in favour of respondents on the ground that where owner is in possession of suit property and if his possession is threatened by a person without any right, the civil court has the jurisdiction to try such suit irrespective of the fact that subject matter of the suit land is covered by the Act. It is this order, which is called in question in the present petition.

3) Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that impugned order has been passed in hot haste; without application of mind and without taking into consideration the grounds taken by the petitioner-respondent in the written statement.

4) Petitioner has not questioned the competence-jurisdiction of the trial Court. Petitioner has also not averred in the wit petition that trial Court or appellate court have passed the order without or in excess of jurisdiction.

5) The maintainability of the petition is put under cloud by its very own averments on the ground that Civil Procedure Code has undergone a sea change with the amendment of 2009. The amendment has restricted the powers of the revisional Court. Virtually, petition is in the nature of revision petition and if such a practice is adopted and allowed that will render the aim and object of the amendment infructuous and meaningless. The fact of this Court having vast powers under Article 226 and 227 is undisputed, but care has to be taken when the same is warranted to be exercised, because the powers under such Articles has to be utilized very cautiously, carefully, sparingly and in rarest of the rare cases.

6) The Apex Court in case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported as 2010 AIR SCW 6387 has observed that there is tendency in High Courts to entertain petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders against which revision is barred in terms of amended Act of CPC. It is apt to reproduce Para 80, 81 and 82 of the judgment supra herein:-

“80. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev (supra) and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 of CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding High Court’s power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.

81. As a result of frequent interference by Hon’ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document