Point of Law : Suit for declaration and injunction – Gran of interim relief – Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this court is being invoked by the petitioner seeking quashment of order dated 27.05.2020 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by the court of Sub Judge Jammu (for short ‘the trial court’).

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that a suit for declaration and injunction came to be filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners in respect of immovable property/land covered under Khasra Nos.610 min (10 kanals) and 605 min (18 kanals 6 marlas) situated at village Pargwal Akhnoor, District Jammu. Alongside the main suit, in the application for interim relief, the trial court initially passed an order of status quo. During the pendency of the suit and operation of the interim order, two applications came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein under Section 151 CPC, one for allowing him to reap/harvest the wheat crop sown on the land in question and the other for releasing of the said harvested wheat crop purported to have seized/confiscated by Police Post Pargwal. In both the applications, the trial court issued notice to the non-applicants on 11.05.2020 and fixed both applications for further proceedings on 14.05.2020.

3. On 14.05.2020, in the first application the counsel for non applicant entered appearance and sought time for filing objections and which came to be granted by the trial court. The said application came to be fixed for further proceedings on 20.05.2020. In the second application on 14.05.2020, counsel for the non applicant as well appeared and sought time for filing objections which had been filed in between while fixing the next date in the case on 20.05.2020. In the first application, no further proceedings after 14.05.2020 have been undertaken by the trial court whereas in the second application, further proceedings had been deferred on two dates i.e. 23.05.2020 and 26.05.2020 fixing the next date in the said application on 27.05.2020.

4. On 27.05.2020, both the applications have been considered and decided by the trial court by the impugned common order while allowing the same primarily on the premise that the non applicants have filed reply to both the applications jointly through Advocate J P Gandhi.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court.

6. A bare perusal of the record tends to show that no further proceedings had been undertaken by the trial court in the first application after 14.05.2020 and that no objections whatsoever have been filed by the non applicants in opposition to the said application whereas record further tends to show that the non applicants have filed objections only to the second application alone. The trial court prima facie seemingly has proceeded on wrong premise while recording that objections stand filed in both the applications and proceeded to pass the impugned order while disposing of both the applications.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court erred while passing the impugned order disposing of the first application without there being objections of the non-applicant and consequently condemned the petitioner unheard violating basic fundamental principles of natural justice seemingly has substance.

8. Now as to whether exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in the instant case is warranted or not, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. The Apex Court in case titled as Shalini Shayam Shetty & anr Vs. Rajendra Shankar Pati, reported in 2010 (8) SCC 3291 has laid down:

“62. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition