THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17867 OF 2010 DATED _______AUGUST, 2010 BETWEEN Ayineedu Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And The Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District, And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17867 OF 2010 O R D E R The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the docket proceedings dated 07.02.2006 in O.S.No.31 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District, and seeks a consequential direction to the said Court to follow the procedure under Order XXII Rule 9 (2) and (4) CPC. Respondents 2 to 6 herein filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.12.1994 allegedly executed by one S.Seetaravamma in favour of the husband of the second respondent and father of respondents 3 to 6. Being an agreement holder in respect of the same property, the petitioner herein was arrayed as the second defendant in the said suit along with S.Seetaravamma, who figured as the first defendant. She died pendente lite and with a delay of 1237 days the plaintiffs filed applications seeking condonation of the delay, setting aside of the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives. These applications were filed on 06.06.2002. The condone delay application was numbered as I.A.No.607 of 2002 in O.S.No.31 of 1997 and the other applications remained at the SR stage. The condone delay application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 31.07.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed CRP No.3612 of 2002 before this Court which was allowed on 19.12.2003, setting aside the order in I.A.No.607 of 2002 upon payment of Rs.2,000/- costs. The trial Court dismissed the suit as abated on 21.06.2004 as there was some delay and confusion with regard to the payment of costs as directed by this Court in the CRP. By way of the amended order dated 19.07.2004 this Court condoned the delay in payment of the costs and therefore, the order dated 19.12.2003 setting aside the dismissal of the condone delay application was restored. However, it is the complaint of the petitioner that the trial Court did not take necessary steps pursuant to the amended order by taking up the applications filed for setting aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. It is his case that he has a valuable right to contest these applications. His grievance is that the trial Court without following this procedure, abruptly passed a docket order on 07.02.2006 stating as follows: “Suit is restored to file. Issue notice to other side by 01.03.2006. For carrying out amendment and for filing neat copy of the plaint by then.” Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed CRP (SR) No.20090 of 2009 before this Court. Upon the objection raised by the Office as to the maintainability of the CRP, the matter was placed before a learned Judge of this Court. The learned Judge upon hearing arguments confirmed the office objection holding that the CRP does not lie. This order was passed on 13.08.2009. Relevant to note, this CRP was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Perusal of the order demonstrates that the learned Judge dealt with the matter on merits and observed as follows: “ When the Civil Revision Petition was presented, Office raised objection as to how the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against the action of the lower Court for proceeding with the suit. In complying with the objection, the petitioner’s Counsel endorsed that the lower Court is proceeding illegally and its action is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. Office, therefore, placed the papers before this Court for orders. This Court considered the matter and is convinced that the Civil Revision Petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not lie. Even if the petitioner perceives errors in the procedure adopted by the trial Court, remedy is to file appeal after disposal of the suit or take such pleas during the arguments. The Civil Revision Petition at this stage does not lie.” Having failed in the CRP aforestated, the petitioner now seeks to invoke the Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. When this Court entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of this writ petition, given the fact that the petitioner had already invoked the powers of superintendence of this Court over Subordinate Courts under Article 227, Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed arguments on this aspect relying on case law. He drew my attention to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM, V/s. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, GUNTUR[1], wherein the Division Bench observed that this Court would be competent to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court as the said dismissal was at the stage of the admission and there was no adjudication on merits. This judgment has no application to the facts presently obtaining as the order passed in CRP (SR) No.20090 of 2009 dealt with the issue on merits and was not a dismissal simpliciter. The learned counsel also placed reliance on JOSEPH POTHEN V/s. THE STATE OF KERALA[2] wherein the Supreme Court held that where the writ proceedings before the High Court failed on the ground that the petitioner had an effective alternate remedy the doctrine of res judicata would not bar such petitioner from filing an application before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for similar relief. The judgment of the Supreme Court in HOSHNAK SINGH V/s. UNION OF INDIA[3] is also on similar lines wherein it was held that when the writ petition is dismissed in limine without a speaking order, such dismissal would not constitute a bar of res judicata to a subsequent petition on the same cause of action. In SMT.PUJARI BAI ETC. V/s.MANDAN GOPAL (DEAD) L.Rs. VIZ., SMT.JAIWANTI[4], the Supreme Court again reiterated this proposition. Reliance on these judgments is however misplaced as the maintainability of the present writ petition is not in question on the ground of applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. The issue presently is whether the petitioner, having already invoked the powers of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and having failed in such attempt can once again seek to invoke the supervisory certiorari jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that the order dated 13.08.2009 in CRP (SR) No.20090 of 2009 has attained finality as the petitioner did not choose to challenge the same either by way of a review or before the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and this Court is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court (SYED YAKOOB V/s. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN[5]). Once this Court in exercise of its superintendence powers under Article 227 of the Constitution has already passed an order, there is no possibility for this Court once again to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in the same matter. In any event, the learned Judge while passing the order dated 13.08.2009 in the CRP (SR) protected the interest of the petitioner by observing that it is open to him to take all such pleas with regard to errors in the procedure adopted by the trial Court at the stage of appeal, if necessary. This constitutes sufficient safeguard of the petitioner’s rights and no further interference by this Court is called for at the present stage. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J ________AUGUST, 2010 PGS [1] 1978 (2) An.WR 1 [2] AIR 1965 SC 1514 [3] AIR 1979 SC 1328 [4] AIR 1989 SC 1764 [5] AIR 1964 SC 477