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

1959 Supreme(All) 121

V.D.BHARGAVA, R.A.MISRA
UMA SHANKAR RAI AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHERN RAILWAY, LUCKNOW – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.N.MULLA, S.D.MISHRA

V. D. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS application was referred to a Bench of two Judges by one of us on account of the fact that it was a joint application on behalf of four persons. In the opinion of the referring Judge a writ petition could be filed only by one unless their right was joint and inseparable. In case of a common right it is not open to the persons, who are affected by a common order to file a joint writ application. Since there was no reported decision of this Court on this matter, and since this matter often arises, hence this reference to a Bench. There was necessity of referring this case, particularly on account of certain remarks made in Manindra Nath Pal v. Municipal commissioners, Baranagore Municipality, (S) AIR 1956 Cal 291 at p. 295. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Sinha in that case it was held that this rule was a highly technical one of procedure, and should not be introduced in our law. In our view, writ jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction and is for the enforcement of an individual right and there can be no question of the application of order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to such proceedings. The learned Judge seems to have been influence by the fact tha










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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top