High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 seeking striking off of a plaint. The court held that since an exclusive remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC existed, the High Court could not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
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. 2386 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
C.R.P.(PD).No. 2386 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No. 15559 of 2019
1. P.Gopalakrishnan
2. P.Muthukrishnan
3. P.Anbalagan ... Petitioners
-Vs-
S.G.Thangavel
S/o. Gopal,
Proprietor Om Muruga Traders,
D.No. 199, Suramangalam Main Road,
Pallapatti, Salem – 636 009. ... Respondent
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to Struck of the Plaint filed in O.S.No. 336 of 2019 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Salem, Salem District.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondent : Mr.M.Devaraj
1/5
C.R.P. (PD) No. 2386 of 2019
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the Plaint filed in O.S.No. 336 of 2019 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Salem.
the suit before the Trial Court have not chosen to file any application to strike off the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. When there is an exclusive provision available to invoke before the trial Court, the parties cannot directly approach this Court to invoke the superintending power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported case in 2019 (5) C.T.C.696 (Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribala Sabai and Others -Vs- Tuticorin Educational Society and Others” and the relevant paragraphs therein are extracted here under;
“ 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
2/5
C.R.P. (PD) No. 2386 of 2019
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 quasijudicial 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. This is why, a 3 member Bench of this court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai2, pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath 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,
3/5
C.R.P. (PD) No. 2386 of 2019
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. ”
05.11.2019
Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non speaking order kmm
To
The First Additional District Munsif, Salem, Salem District.
4/5
C.R.P. (PD) No. 2386 of 2019
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
kmm
C.R.P. (PD) No. 2386 of 2019
05.11.2019
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging a High Court order can be entertained when a specific remedy of appeal or application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is excluded by the tri
Whether the High Court exercised its superintending power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contrary to the availability of statutory remedies under the CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribala Sabai and Others Vs Tuticorin Educational Society and OthersFollowed¶18
2019 (5) C.T.C. 696
Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi NathDistinguished¶24
Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander RaiOverruled¶24
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Gopalakrishnan and Others
S.G.Thangavel
R. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
