IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226; challenges to compromise decrees must be made within the same court that issued them, and such decrees can only be recalled if proven void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court vested by Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash judgment and decree dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff (Additional Special Mobile Magistrate), Beerwah ("the trial Court"] in file No. 56/N titled Ab. Rahim Bhat & Ors. v. Ab. Majeed Ganie. The petitioner also seeks quashment of execution petition filed before the trial Court for executing the impugned judgment and decree.

2. From reading of the writ petition, it transpires that while a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondents against the petitioner was pending adjudication in the trial Court, the parties entered into a compromise, which was reduced in writing in terms of deed executed on 25th October, 2019. On the basis of this compromise deed and after recording statements of both the parties, the trial Court passed a compromise decree dated 13.11.2019. The decree was accepted by all the parties including the petitioner herein. It was only on 25th October, 2021, almost three years after passing of the decree, the petitioner moved the trial Court by filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recalling of the compromise deed dated 13.11.2019 on the ground that the same had been obtained by the respondents by putting the petitioner under coercion. The application was considered by the trial Court and vide order dated 20th July, 2022 the same was dismissed. It is this order passed by the trial Court as also the pending execution proceedings, which are called in question in the writ petition. As noted above, the petitioner also seeks quashment of the compromise decree dated 13.11.2019.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find absolutely no merit in this petition. That apart, it is trite law that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court vested by Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to challenge the judicial orders passed by the Civil Courts. I am fortified in taking this view by a Three-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 423 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 29 as under:-

"25. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system of King's Court in India and of all other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to supervision of King's Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. Orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression "inferior court" is not referable to judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order in paras 26 and 27 quoted above.

26. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai also observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost o