1 LPA-124/99 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.124 OF 1999 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3589 OF 199 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2011 Pushpa Ramakant Patil & ors. : Appellants Versus Sharad Purshottam Gad & ors. : Respondents. Mr. V Y Sanglikar for the Appellant Mr. A A Kocharekar for Respondent No.1(D) CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 17th August 2011 P.C. 1 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that in view of the concurrent findings of fact given by the courts below in respect of bonafide requirement of the landlady, no interference of the court is called for. The learned Single Judge therefore summarily dismissed the writ petition. Against the said order, this Letters Patent Appeal is filed. 2 It is unfortunate that though the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable, the appellant-judgment debtor has successfully continued the legal battle for more than a decade, as this Letters Patent Appeal is of the year 1999. The Appellant herein is the original defendant against whom a suit on 2 LPA-124/99 the ground of bonafide requirement was filed by the landlady. The said suit was decreed by the trial court. Appeal against the said decree was dismissed by the Appellate Court. A writ petition filed against the order of the Appellate Court was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no interference is called for in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below 3 It is well settled proposition of law that by simply mentioning Article 226 in the cause title of the Petition, the Letters Patent jurisdiction cannot be invoked. It is required to be noted that the proceedings arose out of a civil suit for possession which was decreed. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissed the appeal and the learned Single Judge of this Court also did not entertain the writ petition. The learned Single Judge was exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the Letters Patent Appeals filed against each and every order passed in a civil suit are entertained, there will no end to the litigation simply because the Appellant makes a mention of Article 226 in the cause title. Ultimately the court is required to see the substance of the proceedings and the jurisdiction exercised. It is not a case where any quasi judicial order passed by the Government authority is challenged by way of writ petition. In a proceeding of the nature in question, this Court always exercises supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. The learned counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the 3 LPA-124/99 case of M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd v/s. Machindra Govind Makasare & ors. reported in 2011 (3) AIR Bom R 178. The Respondents also relied on the same judgment on the ground that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. The Full Bench of this Court held that the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. The Full Bench also held that mentioning a particular Article in a writ petition is of no relevance. It is unfortunate that decree for eviction which is passed long back has remained unexecutable for more than a decade i.e. for 15 years and, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal which is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishorilal v/s. Sales Officer, District Land Development Bank and ors reported in (2006) 7 SCC 496 which is not directly applicable to the issue involved in the present Letters Patent Appeal, as in the case before the Supreme Court, notice of auction was under challenge, and the proceedings had arisen out of the said auction. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable as the petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The Supreme Court ultimately held that the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable. 3 As pointed out earlier, the jurisdiction of the court is not dependent upon which Article of the Constitution is mentioned by the advocate 4 LPA-124/99 in the writ petition. The court is required to see whether the court has exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once the Court has exercised supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate court, the LPA in not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any judgment directly on the issue where decree is passed by the civil court and which is confirmed by the Appellate Court and the writ petition is dismissed and the LPA is entertained by this Court. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated forthwith. Civil Application is rejected 4 The learned counsel for the appellant requested for continuing the interim relief for some time. The interim relief granted earlier to continue for a period of two weeks from date. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]