Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil proceeding where an appellate court had passed an order. The respondent, who was the party aggrieved by that order, first invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision petition. Subsequently, the respondent filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, challenging the very same appellate court order. The High Court entertained the writ petition, holding that despite the dismissal of the revision, it could still interfere under Articles 226 and 227 if a proper case was made out. After examining the merits, the High Court granted relief to the respondent. The appellant, the opposite party in the original dispute, appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court could not have interfered under Articles 226 and 227 after the revision had been dismissed. The respondent argued that the appellate court’s order had not merged in the revisional order and that the writ jurisdiction was wider, so the High Court was justified in granting relief. The Supreme Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, noting that it circumscribes the limits of the High Court’s power but is exercisable as a superior court for rectifying errors. However, the core issue was whether a party, having chosen one mode of invoking the High Court’s supervisory power and having exhausted it, could later invoke another mode in respect of the same order. The Court held that even on the assumption that there was no merger, once a party chooses and exhausts a remedy like revision under Section 115, it is not a proper or sound exercise of discretion to grant relief through a writ petition against the same order. The Court emphasized that if two modes of invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction are available, choosing and exhausting one should bar the other, as permitting both would lead to abuse of process and would undermine the finality of the court’s decisions. The refusal to grant relief in such circumstances is in consonance with preventing abuse and respecting the finality of the court’s own decisions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the relief granted by the High Court in the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115; Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 227 - The respondent had filed a revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging an appellate court order, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the same order, and the High Court granted relief on merits. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that even assuming the order had not merged, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained because the respondent had already chosen and exhausted the remedy under Section 115 CPC. Where two modes of invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction are available, choosing and exhausting one should preclude the grant of relief in the other, to prevent abuse of process and to accord finality to its own decisions. Held, refusal to grant relief in such circumstances is proper. (327 H)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution after the dismissal of a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the same order of the subordinate court
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition when the respondent had already chosen and exhausted the remedy under Section 115 CPC; the relief granted by the High Court was set aside
Law Points
- If two modes of invoking the High Court's jurisdiction exist and one is chosen and exhausted
- relief in the other set of proceedings should not be granted
- refusal prevents abuse of process and accords finality
- revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited
