The High Court dismissed a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a plaint, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal to hold that the availability of a remedy under Civil Procedure Code bars revision.
The civil revision petition and the connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD).No.2038 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
C.R.P.(PD)No.2038 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.13193 of 2019
1.Padmini Rajan
2.Uma Rajan
3.Rashmi Rajan Kapoor
4.Seshu Rajan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Vathsala Jagannathan
2.M/s.Govel Trust,
A Public Charitable Trust,
Rep. by its Trustee G.Srinivasan,
Having its registered office at:
132, Anna Nagar, Madurai - 625 020.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Gandhipuram Sub Registrar Office,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. ... Respondents
[RR 2 and 3 are formal parties and no reliefs are sought against them]
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.695 of 2016 on the file of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam For 1st Respondent : N.Manoharan
1/6
C.R.P.(PD).No.2038 of 2019
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the defendants in the suit to strike off or reject the plaint filed in O.S.No.695 of 2016 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
the recent order of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2019 (5) CTC 696 in the matter of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others V. Tuticorin Educational Society and others , has submitted that, when a remedy is available for the parties, in any civil matters concerning with the civil dispute pending before the Civil Courts under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, without exhausting such remedies, party shall not be relegated
to invoke the superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
C.R.P.(PD).No.2038 of 2019
4.I have gone through the said judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and I fully agree with the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, especially, in paragraphs 13 and 14, which reads thus:
"13. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before Civil Courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. That is why, a 3 member bench of this court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 675], pointed out in
3/6
C.R.P.(PD).No.2038 of 2019
RAdhey Shyam v. Chabbi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423] that "orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial / civil courts.
14. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself."
5.The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that, in civil matter, such kind of invocation of the superintendence power of this Court under Article 227, without exhausting the appeal remedy or the other remedy under the Civil Procedure Code before the concerned Court, is almost near a total bar.
6.In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
entertain this revision, since it has been filed, admittedly, without having exhausted the remedy available under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. 4/6
C.R.P.(PD).No.2038 of 2019
for the very same relief of rejecting the plaint filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff.
also dismissed.
23.10.2019
Sgl
To
The I Additional Subordinate Court,
Coimbatore.
5/6
C.R.P.(PD).No.2038 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl
C.R.P.(PD)No.2038 of 2019
23.10.2019
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution can be entertained when a specific remedy of appeal under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is available.
Whether the petitioners are estopped from approaching the High Court under Article 227 without exhausting the appellate remedy provided under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radhey Shyam v. Chabbi NathReferred¶21
Radhey Shyam v. Chabbi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423] · Who else cites this
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander RajOverruled¶21
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 675] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Padmini Rajan
Umadevi Rajan
Rashmi Rajan Kapoor
Seshu Rajan
Vathsala Jagannathan
M/s. Govel Trust
R. Suchit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
