Writ of prohibition cannot block a competent civil court from deciding statutory bar and res judicata as preliminary issues.

A writ of prohibition is an exceptional supervisory remedy and cannot be used to stop a competent civil court from deciding issues within its jurisdiction absent clear lack or excess of jurisdiction. The civil court was entitled to examine its own maintainability, including the statutory bar under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, and the pleas of res judicata or estoppel. Those threshold objections were to be determined first as preliminary issues, and the stay of the related revenue appeal could continue only until that determination was made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the civil court from proceeding with the suit and the revenue authority from proceeding with the appeal. (ii) Whether the civil court should first decide, as preliminary issues, the maintainability of the suit under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and the plea of res judicata or estoppel.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the civil court from proceeding with the suit and the revenue authority from proceeding with the appeal.

Analysis: A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary supervisory remedy, ordinarily available only where the subordinate court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, under an unconstitutional law, or in contravention of fundamental rights. It is not a substitute for appeal, and the writ jurisdiction should not be used to prevent a competent court from deciding issues that lie within its jurisdiction. The civil court was competent to examine whether the suit was barred by the statutory bar under Section 14 of the Act and whether res judicata or estoppel applied. In the absence of any cogent reason showing total absence of jurisdiction, the High Court ought not to have restrained the civil court altogether.

Conclusion: The writ of prohibition against the civil court could not be sustained; it was set aside in that respect.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil court should first decide, as preliminary issues, the maintainability of the suit under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 and the plea of res judicata or estoppel.

Analysis: The statute bars civil suits to set aside or modify decisions under the Act except in cases of misrepresentation, fraud or collusion. The civil court also has the procedural power to determine its own jurisdiction and the maintainability of the suit, including questions of statutory bar and res judicata. To avoid usurping the civil court's function, the proper course was to direct an expeditious decision on those threshold questions before the substantive controversy could proceed. As the appeal before the revenue authority depended upon the outcome of those preliminary questions, continued restraint of that proceeding was justified only until the preliminary issues were answered.

Conclusion: The suit had to be decided first on preliminary issues of statutory bar and res judicata or estoppel, and the stay of the revenue appeal was to continue only until those issues were finally decided.

Final Conclusion: The judgment below was modified so that the civil court could proceed only to decide the threshold objections first, while the revenue appeal remained stayed pending that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of prohibition should not be used to prevent a competent civil court from deciding its own jurisdiction and statutory maintainability unless there is a clear case of acting without or in excess of jurisdiction; threshold issues such as statutory bar and res judicata should ordinarily be left to the court seized of the suit to decide as preliminary issues.

---