Civil Revision Plea Under Art 227 Maintainable Against Trial Court’s Inaction In First Deciding Plea Under Order XIV Rule 2 In DV Case: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the inaction on the part of court below in disposing of a plea under Order XIV Rule 2 read with section 151 of the CPC in a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, is maintainable.

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi rejected the contention that the remedy available to the petitioners is to file writ petition seeking the relief, that too under Article 227. 

"A petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is different from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution oF India. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two Articles is also different. While Article 226 gives High Courts the power to issue instructions, orders and writs to any person or authority, including the Government, Article 227 gives High Courts the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals in the territory over which they have jurisdiction. In any event, a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India cannot be called a writ petition," said the court.

The court added that the power under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court even suo motu, as a custodian of justice. 

"This being the settled legal position, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant that this Civil Revision Petition n is not maintainable before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a writ petition, that too under Article 227 of Constitution of India, do not merit consideration," said the court.

The petition sought direction to the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellandu to dispose of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners before proceeding further in the main domestic violence case filed against them. The Respondent (original complainant) had filed a DVC before the jurisdictional court, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 20 and 21 of the Act.

The petitioners were arrayed as Respondents in the DVC. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC requesting the court below to decide the issues mentioned therein as preliminary issues and dismiss the DVC.

The petitioners argued that the court below is insisting to proceed with the trial of the case without disposing of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition at the first instance.

While submitting that the inaction on the part of the court below is illegal and arbitrary, the petitioners further argued that since the ongoing proceedings under the 2005 Act is predominantly civil in nature, therefore the court is required to decide the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC at the first instance and then proceed with the matter.

The petitioners also contended that decision in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition will have a bearing over the main case and that if the lower court proceeds further without hearing the same, then the very purpose of filing the said petition would be defeated.

While arguing extensively on the nature and scope of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the respondent mainly challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that a direction to the lower court to dispose of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition at the first instance cannot be given by a High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a writ petition seeking such a direction, that too under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

While noting that the law on the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is settled, the bench observed that the power of superintendence under Article 227 may be exercised when there is “grave injustice or failure of justice, such as, when the Court or Tribunal subordinate to it has (i) assumed jurisdiction when it does not have, (ii) failed to exercise the jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning ln failure of justice and (iii) the jurisdiction, though available, is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.”

The bench also observed that power under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for vindication of its position as the highest judicial authority in the State.

“...In case where the High Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, such exercise is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right,” the bench added.

The court noted there is no impugned order before it and the petitioners are only seeking a direction to the court below to dispose of the application filed by them

It held that it is not proper on the part of the Court below to insist the petitioners herein to proceed with the cross-examination of the respondent/complainant, without disposing of the subject petition at the first instance, in accordance with law.

Finding it a fit case to direct the court below to dispose of the application before proceeding further with the main matter, the court directed the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu, to do so within a period of four weeks.

Case Title: Rangojoo Vidyanath & Ors. vs. Mattewada Sowmya Civil Revision Petition No. 882 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order