Buradagunta Sarojini vs The Principal Junior Civil Judge
2021 Latest Caselaw 5090 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI

                   WRIT PETITION No. 29021 of 2021

                         (Proceedings through physical mode)

Buradagunta Sarojini
W/o. Sobhanadri @ Moshe,
Hindu, aged 70 years,
Occ: Coolie, r/o. D.No.5-34,
Edara village, Agiripalli Mandal,
Krishna District.                                              .. Petitioner

          Versus


The Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Nuzividu, Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh state and another.                              .. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner                    : Mr. B. Ashok Kumar

Counsel for respondents                       : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda
                                                G.P. attached to the office
                                                of learned Addl. A.G.-II.


                                  ORDER (ORAL)

Dt: 09.12.2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

In this writ petition, the writ petitioner would invoke jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of certiorari to

quash the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, on

20.11.2021 in I.A.No.307 of 2020 in O.S.No.98 of 2019.

In the case of Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath

and others reported in (2015)5 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is not maintainable to challenge the order passed by civil court. In

paragraphs No.20 and 21, it is held thus;

"20. This Court in judgment dated 6-2-1989 in Qamruddin

v. Rasul Baksh reported in (1990) 1 AWC 308 (SC)

which has been quoted in the Allahabad High Court

judgment in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur

reported in 1991 SCC OnLine All 63 considered the issue

of writ of certiorari and mandamus against interim order of

the civil court and held:(Qamruddin case)

"4......If the order of injunction is passed by a

competent court having jurisdiction in the matter, it is not

permissible for the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution to quash the same by issuing a writ of

certiorari. In the instant case the learned Single Judge of

the High Court further failed to realise that a writ of

mandamus could not be issued in this case. A writ of

mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless

he is under a statutory duty to perform a public duty. The

dispute involved in the instant case was entirely between

two private parties, which could not be a subject-matter of

writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The learned Single Judge ignored this basic principle of writ

jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution. There was no occasion or justification for

issue of a writ of certiorari or mandamus. The High Court

committed serious error of jurisdiction in interfering with

the order of the District Judge."

21. Thus, it has been clearly laid down by this Court that an

order of the civil court could be challenged under Article

227 and not under Article 226."

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as not

maintainable, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies available

to her under law. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J

GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI

WRIT PETITION No.29021 of 2021 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

Dt: 09.12.2021

GM