Chattisgarh High Court
Daljeet Kaur vs Indira Deshlahra on 8 December, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 621 of 2022
1. Daljeet Kaur Wd/o Late Ranvir Singh Chane Aged About 64 Years
2. Prabindar Singh S/o Late Ranvir Singh Aged About 46 Years
3. Kulvindar Singh S/o Late Ranvir Singh Chande Aged About 42 Years
4. Harvindar Singh S/o Late Ranvir Singh Chane Aged About 40 Years
5. Rajvindar Rihal W/o Harprit Aged About 52 Years
All are R/o House No. 26, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District
Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
Indira Deshlahra W/o Shri Vinod Deshlahra Aged About 47 Years R/o
House No. 11, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
08.12.2022
Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms.
Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ashish
Surana, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 22.09.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(227) No. 550 of 2022.
3. In the writ petition challenge was made to an order dated 12.08.2022
passed by the Sixth Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg in Execution Case
No.01/17.
4. The respondent had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 39-A/2010 against
the present appellants and the suit was decreed by a judgment and decree
dated 13.03.2013. The aforesaid decree was affirmed by the Sixth
Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Appeal No. 41-A/13 by a judgment
dated 29.07.2016. The second appeal preferred being SA No. 507 of 2016
was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2019.
5. An application for amendment was filed by the decree holder for
correcting the name of "Dalbir Singh" as "Prabindar Singh" and also for
submitting a map.
6. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 47 read with 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure to drop the proceedings.
7. The learned Executing Court by the order dated 12.08.2022 allowed
the application filed by the decree holder.
8. It is against that order dated 12.08.2022, the application under Article
227 of the Constitution of India was filed before this Court and which was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge as noticed above.
9. Mr. Ashish Surana submits that this appeal is not maintainable in view
of the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court
(Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, for short, the Act of 2006, which
specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order
or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. Mr. Agrawal submits that in view of Rule 158(10)(b) of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, for short, 'the Rules of 2007', this appeal is
maintainable.
11. What is important is to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others,
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, had held that judicial orders of the Civil
Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It was laid down that challenge to judicial orders
would lie by way of appeal or revision or under Article 227 and not by way
of a writ under Article 226 and 32.
12. There is no dispute that the order dated 12.08.2022 is a judicial order
and therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the application filed by the
petitioner under Article 227 was decided as an application under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
13. Section 2 (1) of the Act of 2006 reads as follows:
"2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court
from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High
Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction. - (1) An
appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one
Judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division
Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court:
Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an
interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India."
14. A perusal of the above would go to show that no appeal shall lie
before Division Bench against an order passed by a learned Single Judge
in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to the Division Bench comprising of two judges of the High Court.
15. Rule 158 (10)(b) of the Rules of 2007 reads as follows:
"158. Case Flow Management Rules in the High Court:-
Division of Cases into different tracks:
xxx xxx xxx
(10) Writ appeals.- An appeal to a Division Bench from
judgment of a Single Judge may lie in the following cases:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) appeals from final judgment of a Single Judge in
original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx"
16. As noted earlier, the learned Single Judge did not exercise original
jurisdiction while deciding the validity of the judicial order dated 12.08.2022.
The same was done under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and therefore, submission of Mr. Agrawal is
misconceived.
17. In that view of the matter, this appeal is not maintainable and
resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
