Skip to content


Pirthi Singh Vs. Ram Sukh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 236 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1968P& H126
ActsConstitution of India - Article 227
AppellantPirthi Singh
RespondentRam Sukh and ors.
Appellant Advocate D.N. Aggarwal and; Malik Singh, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Parkash Chand and; Shamair Chand, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - moreover, the learned single judge exercised his jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution and not under article 226 of the constitution 3. that being so, the present appeal is not competent and it is clearly barred by clause 10 of the letters patent......under article 226 of the constitution was filed. this is apparent from the fact that a higher court fee is required for a petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, whereas for a petition under article 227 of the constitution, a very nominal court fee is required. moreover, the learned single judge exercised his jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution and not under article 226 of the constitution 3. that being so, the present appeal is not competent and it is clearly barred by clause 10 of the letters patent. the appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs mehar singh, c.j. 4. i agree.
Judgment:

Mahajan, J.

1. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed in this Court by Ram Sukh and others against the State of Punjab, Pirthi Singh and others. In this petition order of Collector. Kangra, passed on 20th September, 1962 remanding the case to the Assistant Collector and the consequential order of the Assistant Collector dated the 10th December 1962 directing the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute were challenged. This petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been filed

2. The present appeal is incompetent under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Clause 10 is in these terms:

'10. And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Lahore from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of S. 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided, an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, made on or after the first day of February, 1929, in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments oi Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our or their Privy Council as hereinafter provided.'

No Letters Patent appeal lies against an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. It is not disputed that an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an order in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. All that is maintained is that virtually the order is under Article 226 of the Constitution We are unable to accept this contention No petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed. This is apparent from the fact that a higher Court fee is required for a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereas for a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, a very nominal Court fee is required. Moreover, the learned Single Judge exercised his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and not under Article 226 of the Constitution

3. That being so, the present appeal is not competent and it is clearly barred by Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appeal Is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs

Mehar Singh, C.J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //