IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial officers should not be impleaded in writ petitions, and applications under Order XI must be timely and relevant to the case.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Advocate, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC-II, Pratapgarh in Original Suit No.01 of 2016 titled Akhtar Khan versus Satya Prakash, rejecting the application (Paper No.95 Ga 2) filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rules 12/14 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’). The petitioner has also challenged validity of a judgment and order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.117 of 2024 titled Akhtar Khan versus (1) Poornawati Sharma and (2) Mamta Sharma, whereby the Revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 03.05.2024 has been dismissed at the admission stage.

3. The petitioner has impleaded the District Judge, Pratapgarh and the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC-II, Pratapgarh as opposite parties no.1 and 2 to the petition.

4. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue: AIR 1963 SC 786, a Bench consisting of four Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties.

5. However, in Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur: (1999) 2 SCC 577, a Bench consisting of two Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as follows: -

“14. Before parting with this case, it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the special leave petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gorakhpur are shown as respondents and in the special leave petition, they are shown as contesting respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court; nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the special leave petition and describing them as contesting respondents. We do not approve of the course adopted by the petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the judicial officers concerned. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Government. It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such a practice.” (Emphasis added)

6. It is relevant to note that the aforesaid observations were made by the Bench consisting of two Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi (Supra) without referring to the earlier decision in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia (Supra) given by a larger Bench consisting of four Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

7. In Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat: (2015) 9 SCC 1, another Bench consisting of two Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed numerous precedents on the issue, including the judgments in the cases of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia and Savitri Devi (Supra) and explained the law as follows: -

“43. As we notice, the decisions rendered in Hari Vishnu Kamath [AIR 1955 SC 233], Udit Narain Singh [AIR 1963 SC 786] and Savitri Devi [(1999) 2 SCC 577] have to be properly understood. In Hari Vishnu Kamath, the larger Bench was dealing with a case that arose from Election Tribunal which had ceased to exist and