Rasulbai and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, City Municipal Council and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - articles 226 & 227--writ petition--prayer to quash the impugned order passed by the learned single judge of the high court in a criminal petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c.--maintainability of the writ petition--held, no writ petition would lie against an order passed by the learned single judge of the high court in a criminal petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c.--the high court, acting in its judicial capacity, cannot be said to be an authority subject to the jurisdiction of the high court itself under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india. hence, writ petition is not maintainable.;writ petition is dismissed. - sections 10 & 20: [k.l. manjunath & s.n. satyanarayana, jj] suit for specific performance - plaintiffs readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract held, it is the duty of the plaintiff to show readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract throughout the transaction to complete the required legal formalities and he must assist the defendant in all aspects of the transaction. on facts held, admittedly, the first defendant alone cannot obtain permission in form no. 37 as the said form has to be signed by both the parties, it is not the case of the plaintiff that to enable the first defendant he had sent required signed papers to the first defendant to secure permission from the income tax department in the required forms. admittedly, he has not signed such documents. in the absence of documents signed by the plaintiff, the first defendant cannot seek permission from the income tax department in form no. 37. trial judge without considering these factual aspects namely ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to secure the sale deed by paying the balance of sale consideration of rs.14 lakhs by the end of november 1994 or first week of december 1994 and without considering that the documents were not made available to the first defendant to enable him to obtain permission in form no. 37, has granted the decree. if defendants 1 and 2 are the joint owners of the property and if there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 together, if the first defendant alone has agreed to sell the property through the 3rd defendant and if the 3rd defendant has not been authorised by the 2nd defendant to sell her share in the property to the plaintiff, if the 2nd defendant has not agreed to sell her property to the plaintiff, no court can grant decree against the 2nd defendant who is not a party to any contract. decree was set aside. sections 10 & 20: [k.l. manjunath & s.n. satyanarayana, jj] suit for specific performance - no alternative prayer for refund of advance amount held, court in its discretionary power can mould the relief and grant compensation. h.g. ramesh, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the maintainability of the writ petition. in this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 29-8-2008 (annexure-e) passed by a learned single judge of this court in criminal petition nos. 425/2007 and 1182/2007. in our opinion, the high court, acting in its judicial capacity, cannot be said to be an authority subject to the jurisdiction of the high court itself under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india. hence, no writ petition would lie against an order passed in a criminal petition by a learned single judge of this court. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.petition dismissed.