1.         Constitution of India, Art. 227  Concession made by counsel - Court ought not to have issued the impugned directions merely because a request was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents -  The same would hold true even if a concession was made by the counsel for the appellant -  The Court, while, exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to have confined itself to the subject matter and the issues raised by parties in the Writ Petition - The digression of or expansion of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would open precarious floodgates of litigation should the limitation on the supervisory jurisdiction not be observed mindfully - If for any reason, the Writ Court perceived the oral request made by the respondents to have justified the ends of justice and desired to accept the concession so made by the counsel for appellant-Society, the said request not being the subject matter of the Writ Petition required the Court to query whether the counsel for the appellant-Society has been authorized to make such a statement by the appellant-Society or whether any such resolution has been passed by the appellant-Society giving concession in matters of this nature - Since the required caution was not exercised by the learned Judges of the Writ Court, the directions issued by the Writ Court suffer from infirmity and hence require to be set aside  Advocate  Concession  Duty of court.        (2016)3 PLRSC 654
  2.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Again if there is a provision for appeal to assail an order which is passed by the Court, then there is normal procedure to be adopted under the Civil Procedure Code to assail an order passed by the Court - The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must itself be restricted only to cases where there is a patent illegality. (175) PLR
  3.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 41 Rule 1 - Order remending a case - Appeal would be from the decree of the Appellate Court - Revision petition is not maintainable. (177) PLR
  4.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 115, Order 21, Rule 97 to 103 - Order of Executing Court stating it had no jurisdiction to reopen matter regarding title, as it became functus officio - Challenge to the said order under Article 227 whether maintainable - High Court held it was deemed decree and appeal was maintainable and not  revision - If a Court declines to adjudicate on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction, the said order cannot earn the status of a decree - High Court shall decide the matter as necessary under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (S.C.)(178) PLR
  5.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Court permitting respondent-plaintiff to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence when the petition was listed - Notice of motion was issued and in the meantime, this court observed that evidence may be recorded subject to the rights of the parties in the instant petition - The petitioner bringing to the notice of this Court that statement of Handwriting and Fingerprint expert has since been recorded by the trial Court - In view of the fact that the instant petition has been allowed by setting aside the impugned order, it is directed that the statement of handwriting expert recorded in rebuttal during pendency of the instant petition shall not be looked into by the trial Court while disposing of the suit on merits. (178) PLR
  6.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Court while, exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to have confined itself to the subject matter and the issues raised by parties in the Writ Petition - The digression of or expansion of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would open precarious floodgates of litigation should the limitation on the supervisory jurisdiction not be observed mindfully. (S.C.)(180) PLR
  7.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Land Acquisition Collector is neither Court nor Tribunal subordinate to this Court, and is, therefore, not amenable to power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the instant revision petition under Article 227 is not maintainable - In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner also had alternative efficacious remedy of seeking reference to the Court, in view of Section 28-A (3) read with Section 18 of the Act - For this reason also, the instant petition is not maintainable - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) S. 28-A(3), 18. (174) PLR
  8.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - That each Red Cross Society/District Branch of the Indian Red Cross Society, is governed by its own set of service rules, which stipulate therein, the method of appointments and conditions of service etc., the present writ petition, before this Court, is held to be maintainable at the initial stage itself, without recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (13 of 1985).  (182) PLR
  9.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - Thus if the alternate remedy is available under the statute of appeal or revision, the extra ordinary remedy of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked - Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961) S. 68, 69. (174) PLR 
  10.         Constitution of India, Art. 227 - We must evolve a discipline at the trial to allow for its smooth progress without stalling such course at every turn - The practice to challenge the interim order during the trial must be stopped - This is necessitated to the present malady of prolonged trials and huge accumulation of arrears in the High Court for intervention to non-consequential order. (178) PLR