Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a writ directing one private party to restore possession of a flat to another. The contested ownership and possession issues required evidence and adjudication through ordinary proceedings; a related civil suit was already pending. The High Court had effectively converted the writ into a civil suit. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue civil remedies and without reliance on the vacated High Court findings.
Issues
- Whether disputed possession of a flat between private parties could be adjudicated and restored through a writ petition.
- What effect the set-aside findings would have on ordinary proceedings.
Held
- Ownership, possession and its legal basis were disputed factual questions requiring a properly constituted civil suit and evidence. The claim that the High Court acted on admitted facts was rejected. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 19, 20)
- Ordinary property disputes between private persons belong in regular proceedings. The Court distinguished cases alleging breach of statutory duty by a statutory authority and held this writ remedy misconceived. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16)
- The High Court exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction by determining the disputed facts and directing restoration of possession as though trying a civil suit. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue civil proceedings. The High Court’s vacated observations and findings were not to be relied on in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside and writ petition dismissed; parties may pursue appropriate civil remedies, without reliance on the vacated findings.