Only recently in Jacky v. Antony, (2014) 6 SCC 508 it was decided, “in no case, power under Article 226 can be exercised to question a plaint.” In Radhey Shyam v. Chabbi Nath, [Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009] it has been further held, “Judicial Orders of a Civil Court are not amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226.“
“It remains true that exercise of jurisdiction must be within well-recognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a bull in a china shop” [Jai Singh v. MCD, (2010) 9 SCC 385]. Who else could have originally used the phrase “bull in a china shop” other than Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer? See, Mohinder Singh, (1978) 1 SCC 405.
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 held, observations in Paragraph 25 of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 to be not good law.
– Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta, Kiran Devi v. The Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, [Civil Appeal No. 6149 of 2015] decided on 05.04.2021.
Also see, K.P. Natarajan v. Muthalammal, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2492 of 2021] decided on 16.07.2021 and Telengana State Wakf Board v. Mohamed Muzafar, [Civil Appeal No. 4522 of 2021] decided on 03.08.2021.
You must be logged in to post a comment.