CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

S. Samarjit Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 October 1958 · Citation: AIR 1959 P&H 308

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.N. Bhandari, C.J · G.L. Chopra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 133, 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Supreme Court Appeal No. 28 of 1958
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 417 words
1.

This petition under Article 133 ot the Constitution must be dismissed on the short ground that the order from which an appeal is sought to be preferred to the Supreme Court cannot be said to be a "judgment, decree Or final order."

2.

A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was presented to this Court, but we disposed it of by the single word "dismissed".

3.

A decision is final for the purposes of Article 133, when it decides and disposes of the whole merits of the case, when it settles conclusively all the legal rights of the parties and when it leaves nothing to be further litigated upon. The decision or order must affect the merits of the controversy between the parties by determining some right or liability. A writ under Article 226 is issued not with the object of determining the civil rights of the parties but with the object of ensuring that the law of the land is being properly administered. As pointed out in Shriram v. State of Madhya Pra-desh AIR 1955 Nag 257, refusal to issue the writ has only the effect of saying that the High Court does not see any irregularity in the administration or the relevant law

4.

The decision of the Nagpur High Court referred to above was cited with approval by a Full Bench of this Court in Sardar Kapur Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), and by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. No. 194-C of 1955 decided on 10-5-1957.

5.

The petitioner in the present case asked us to quash the order of the State Government approving respondent No. 2 as successor to the Jagir to which the petitioner considers himself entitled and to issue a writ of prohibition to the State Government restraining it from paying the Jagir money to respondent No. 2. We declined to accede to these requests as we were of the opinion that there was no occasion for us to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in this particular case. We did not decide any dispute between the parties and did not determine their legal rights. It seemg to me therefore that the order passed by us can-not fall within the ambit of the expression "judgment, decree or final Order".

6.

For these reasons we are of the opinion that leave to appeal cannot be granted and that the application must be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

7.

There will be no order as to costs.