TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Juvvadi Sridevi, J.
Rangojoo Vidyanath – Petitioner
versus
Mattewada Sowmya – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.882 of 2023
Decided on 17.4.2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 – Preliminary issues – Petitioners are only seeking direction to Court below to dispose of application filed by them under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. before proceeding further in subject DVC, by exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India – It is a fit case to direct Court below to dispose of subject application in Crl. M.P. in DVC filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C., in strict accordance with law, before proceeding further with the matter, which course would sub-serve ends of justice. (Paras 8 and 14)
(B) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellate – Jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence – Powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields – Jurisdiction under Article 226 is normally exercised where a party is affected, but power under Article 227 can be exercised by High Court suo motu, as a custodian of justice – Power under Article 226 is exercised in favour of persons or citizens for vindication of their fundamental rights or other statutory rights – On other hand, jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised by High Court for vindication of its position as highest judicial authority in the State – In certain cases, where there is infringement of fundamental rights, relief under Article 226 can be claimed ex debito justiciae or as a matter of right – But in case where High Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227, such exercise is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. (Para 12)
Result: Civil Revision Petition disposed of with observation/direction.
JUDGMENT
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, challenging the inaction on the part of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellandu, in disposing of Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 in DVC No.8 of 2021, pending on its file.
2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant and perused the record.
3. The Respondent herein/complainant has filed the subject DVC No.8 of 2021 before the Court below, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “DVC Act”) seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 20, 21 of DVC Act and other reliefs. The petitioners herein, who are husband, his parents and his paternal uncle were arrayed as Respondents in the said DVC. In the said DVC, the petitioners herein filed the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 under Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. requesting the Court below to decide the issues mentioned therein as preliminary issues and dismiss the DVC. Alleging that the Court below is insisting the petitioners herein to proceed with the trial of the case without disposing of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance, this Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the Court below to dispose of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 before proceeding further in the subject DVC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the proceedings under the DVC Act are predominantly civil in nature, the Court below is required to decide the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. at the first instance and then proceed further with the matter. The inaction on the part of the Court below in disposing of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance is illegal and arbitrary. If the Preliminary Objection Petition is decided, the same will have bearing over the main DVC. If the Court below proceeds further with the matter without deciding the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022, the very purpose of filing the subject application would be defeated and ultimately prayed to direct the Court below to dispose of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance before proceeding further with the subject DVC.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant strongly opposed the Civil Revision Petition. His first contention is that the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 filed before the Court below under Order XIV Rule 2 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. His second contention is that such a direction is to the Court below to dispose of the subject Crl.M.P.No.645 of 2022 at the first instance cannot be given by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a writ petition seeking such a direction, that too under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Refuting the said submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no writ petition can be moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India nor can a writ to be issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be called a writ petition and that this Court has got ample power of superintendence to direct the Court which is subordinate to it, to exercise the jurisdiction which vests with it. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 also a judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Arun Danial and others Vs. Suganya and others, Decided on 17.11.2022 in Crl.OP.SR.Nos.31852 of 2022 and batch.
7. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the Respondent/complainant would submit
Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
Union of India and Ors. vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors.
Prakash Nath Khanna and Anr. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.
Pradip J. Mehta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad
SupremeToday
Preliminary issues are to be taken up before proceeding further with the matter.
The judgment emphasizes the limitations and conditions for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(1) Striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Once specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is available, High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off ....
Article 227 cannot be invoked against final orders of the Sessions Court; a revision petition under Section 29 of the DV Act is the proper remedy.
The power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked on a limited ground of patent lack of jurisdiction. Magistrates must confine the inquiry to persons whose presence is....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.