(1.) Leave is granted to amend the cause title so as to convert this petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall amend the cause title in the course of today.
(2.) The above prayer was made by Sri B. N. Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and was so allowed by this Court on the ground that against an order passed by the civil court in exercise of ordinary civil Jurisdiction, the Court is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution in order to make it amenable to writ Jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Matthan Singh v. IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut. 1996 (1) ARC 117 Daya Ram alias Dollar and another v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mirzapur and others, 1996 (2) ARC 488 and Om Prakash Rastogi v. VIth Additional District Judge, Moradabad, 1997 (2) ARC 335, in order to contend that an application under Article 226 is in effect an application for revision of the order passed by the learned Court below. if the Court may not exercise writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purposes of revising the order passed by the civil court in exercise of ordinary civil Jurisdiction, in that event this Court can treat this application as one under Article 227 of the Constitution and may exercise its power of superintendence under the said Article.
(3.) In my view, writs are issued against the State. The civil court while exercising ordinary civil Jurisdiction is not a party to the (is nor it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution while discharging judicial function. Therefore, the civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. This is one of the reason why Article 227 has been engrafted immediately after Article 226 conferring power of superintendence over the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it only to ensure that the Courts or the Tribunal in exercise of ordinary jurisdiction acts within their bounds.