Only recently in Jacky v. Antony, (2014) 6 SCC 508 it was decided that “in no case power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint”. In Radhey Shyam v. Chabbi Nath, [Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009] it has been further held now that “judicial orders of a Civil Court are not amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226”.
“It remains true that exercise of jurisdiction must be within well-recognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a bull in a china shop” [See, (2010) 9 SCC 385].
Rhetorical Question No. 1: Who else could have originally used the phrase “bull in a china shop”, in an SC judgment, other than Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer? See, Mohinder Singh, (1978) 1 SCC 405.