Shinde, J. - (1.)THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of 'certiorari' and prohibition. The facts alleged in the petition are briefly as follows:
(2.)MST . Saryoo non -petitioner No. 2 is prosecuting an execution petition before the opposite party No. 1 Mr. R. B. Atal who is working as Additional District Judge, Gwalior. The petitioner took an objection in the execution petition that the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, has no co -extensive powers with the District Judge and as such he has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the said execution petition. The Additional District Judge Mr. Kothasthane who heard the petition upheld the objection and transferred the execution petition to the District Judge, Gwalior on 20 -5 -1953.
The District Judge Gwalior by his order dated 24 -9 -1953, held that the Additional District Judge, Gwalior, has co -extensive powers with the District Judge and retransferred the execution petition for hearing and disposal to the Additional District Judge, Gwalior. Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, the petitioner filed a revision petition No. 137 of 1953 before this court. By his judgment dated 5 -11 -1953, Mr. Justice Chaturvedi held that the Additional District Judge, Gwalior has co -extensive jurisdiction with the District Judge.

The learned Judge also set aside the order of the Additional District Judge by which he held that he has no jurisdiction. As a result of this order of the High Court, the non -applicant No. 1 Mr. R. B. Atal is permitted to usurp the jurisdiction of the District Judge, not legally vested in him. Consequently by an appropriate writ, order or direction the non -petitioner No. 1 be ordered to abstain from proceeding in the execution case No. 32 of 1953 pending in his Court.
From the facts detailed above it is clear that what is sought by this petition is to quash the order of the learned Judge of this Court. Chaturvedi J. in his order dated 5 -11 -1953 specifically held that the Additional District Judge has been invested with co -extensive powers in the district of Gwalior with the District Judge. This petition seeks to quash this order. A writ of certiorari cannot be directed by the High Court to any tribunal which is a branch of the High Court for the purpose of quashing its proceedings. (Vide Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. IX, 1933 Edn. P. Sol, Para 1442). In - -'King v. Justices of the Central Criminal Court',, (1925) 2 K. B. 43 (A), it was held:
The Central Criminal Court is a Court of not less authority than a Court of assize : The Central Criminal Court is, therefore, a superior Court, and writ of 'certiorari' from the King's Bench Division does not lie to it for the purpose of quashing its order.

In - - 'Goonesinha v. O. L. De Kretser',, AIR 1945 PC 83 (B), their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows :

It is well settled, and counsel did not seek to argue to the contrary, that a Court having jurisdiction to issue a writ of 'certiorari' will not and cannot issue it to bring up an order made by a Judge of that Court. Nor will a Superior Court issue the writ directed to another Superior Court - -'Reg v. Justices of the Central Criminal Court',, (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 479 (C), and if the Election Judge is to be regarded as a special or independent tribunal his Court would, in their Lordships opinion, be a Superior Court. Considering that the Court is held before a judge of the Supreme Court from whose decision there is no appeal, it could not be otherwise. But their Lordships are of opinion that the true view is that cognisance - of these petitions is an extension of, or addition to, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and consequently 'certiorari' cannot be granted to bring up any order made in exercise of that jurisdiction.

The matter is thus concluded by the -decision of the Privy Council. A court has no power to issue a writ to bring up an order made by a Judge of that Court. A writ of prohibition likewise issues to restrain all inferior Courts whenever such Courts take cognisance of matters outside their jurisdiction. Halsbury's Laws of England Hailsham Edition 1933. Vol. IX, deal with this subject in para. 1407. In these circumstances this petition cannot be entertained.

(3.)ACCORDINGLY the petition is rejected.
Dixit, J.

;