The WP was filed under article 227 (not under 226), praying to set aside the order of LAC, passed in proceeding under exhibit 5, arosed from order of TC, when TC rejected the exhibit 5 of the plaintiff in a partition suit. The WP was filed only to set aside the order of LAC, on the ground that the petitioner has purchased land from land owner, and now he has become the co-sharer in the suit property. He further made a case that, there is no share as such of the respondent in the suit property, though the suit property is ancestor property of Respondant and his brother, whose only name is reflecting in city servey record. The HC therefore set aside the order of LAC. As per the SC judgment dated 26.2.2015 Radhey sham v/s chahabi nath at col. 31 it is mentioned as "Under Article 227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law" Therefore when petitioner filed WP under 227 of indian constitution , neither there was any mistake of facts or law. petitioner did not pray for any correctness, then. . . . 1. WHETHER HC's ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ? 2. Whether it will bind to party as well as Trial Court ? 3. Whether party should ignore the order being passed without jurisdiction 4. What remedy ? Thanks in Advance
Order passed without jurisdiction is ab initio void, but since this order has been passed by HC, ignorance may cost you contempt. So better file review siting above judgement.
In jointly owned property, co sharer has preferential right to purchase than to 3 rd party.
File appeal against impugned order of HC before SC
2)HC order is binding on the parties
3) you cannot ignore the order as passed without jurisdiction
1. Appears to be. Not possible to comment without seeing order
2. Yes, unless it is challenged in SC or in HC itself by filing a review
3. Cant be ignored unless it is challenged
4. Challenge HC order
You have been asking questions on same subject in multiple queries, without attaching or uploading the court order, thus making a lawyer's task difficult
On basis of such limited information and without studying the papers, no lawyer here would be able to give you a definitive answer
Wish you luck
First of all the order of the High Court would remain valid and binding upon the parties as well as Trial court till it is not quashed or set aside by a higher bench.
PARTIES CAN NOT IGNORE THE ODRER TILL IT IS IN FORCE.
Whether the HC acted beyond jurisdiction is a matter of argument based on detail history of the case and procedures followed by TC and to be decided in a review or appeal process by HC.
The High Court can generally interfere in case of:
1. Erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction.
2. Refusal to exercise jurisdiction.
3. Error of law apparent on the face of record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion.
6. Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material.
You can't ignore the HC order until it is stayed or set aside by SC. Till then the said HC order will be effective
1. The jurisdiction of HC under Article 227 is wider than under 226.
2. Unless I examine the order of the HC and also that of the lower courts I cannot formulate an opinion.
3. Be that as it may, unless the order of the HC is set aside it is binding on all parties to the lis. It is not open to a party to lis to decide at their sweet that order of court is without jurisdiction and refuse to obey it. You have to seek a declaration from the higher court i.e Supreme Court,
1.No.
2.Yes.
3.No.
4.If you feels that the order does not suit to you then go for a revision otherwise it will be binding in all aspect.
1. You may go through the provisions once again properly, the high court is well within its jurisdiction while passing the said orders.
2. The orders passed by the higher court will have a binding effect on the court lower to it.
3. No, it would amount to contempt
