Madras High Court
Pastor Ambrose vs Edward Daniel Chandrasekar on 16 April, 2018
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 16.04.2018
Reserved on : 04.04.2018
Pronounced on : 16.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
CRP(PD)(MD)No.2574 of 2015
1.Pastor Ambrose,
Secretary,
South East India Union of
7th day Adventists,
Having office at No.197, GST Road,
Vandaloor, Chennai ? 48.
2.Jeyaraj Thangavelu,
Treasurer of South East India Union of
7th Day Adventists,
having office at No.197, GST Road,
Vandaloor, Chennai ? 48. .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.Edward Daniel Chandrasekar
2.Pastor. Sam.Sudhakar
3.Executive Committee Members of the North
Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventists,
Represented by its President,
Having office at
No.20/2, Williams Road,
Tiruchirappalli-1.
4.M.John Louise
5.Pastor K.Chelladurai,
S/o Gurumoorthy,
President of South East India Union of
7th day Adventists
having office at: 197, GST Road,
Vandaloor,
Chennai ? 48.
6.R.John
President of Southern Asia Division of S.D.A.,
Having office at: No.2, HCF,
Hosur. .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set-
aside the order passed in I.A.No.565 of 2014 in O.S.No.615 of 2014, dated
17.11.2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif Court,
Tiruchirappalli and dismiss the application with costs.
!For Petitioners : Mr.Isaac Mohan Lal, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
^For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Lazar (for R1)
Mr.C.Jeganathan (for R2)
for M/s.Veera Associates
No Appearance (for R3 to R6)
:ORDER
The defendants 4 and 5 in the suit in O.S.No.615 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsiff, Tiruchirappalli is the revision petitioners before this Court and they hold the post of Secretary and Treasurer of Southeast India Union respectively (hereinafter called as ?SEIU?).
2.The learned Counsels on either side have made their vehement submissions respectively. However, this Court after having careful consideration of the submission made on either side and also after gone through the materials available on record has passed the following order.
3.This is the case of chequered history and the case of the revision petitioners according to the learned Senior Counsel that the above suit in O.S.No.615 of 2014 was filed by the 1st respondent herein as against the petitioners herein and other respondents herein. The said suit came to be filed in connection with election proceeding of North Tamil Conference, as such the relief sought for to declare the Personal agreement executed on 13.03.2014 between the 2nd respondent herein and others namely SEIU and SUD (Southern Asia Division) and further to declare the proposed election to be scheduled to be conducted on 29.05.2014 for the North Tamil Conference as illegal and void.
4.Besides the above prayer, yet another relief was sought for to withhold the election if any conducted on 29.05.2014 and thereby restraining the new one from administering the North Tamil Conference (herein after referred as ?NTC?) till the disposal of the suit. Along with the suit, the 1st respondent herein has filed an I.A.No.565 of 2014 for interim injunction restraining the respondents therein in the suit from conducting any election on 29.05.2014 or in alternative to grant temporary injunction not to assume office till the disposal of the suit.
5.The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that the perusal of the records would reveal that the plaintiff/1st respondent who claims to be the Executive Member of the North Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventist aggrieved over the conduct of the election proceedings of NTC for the tenure of the year from 2014 to 2017 by leveling serious allegations as against the 2nd defendant and others. According to the plaintiff/1st respondent, the 2nd respondent namely Pastor. Sam Sudhakar was elected as President of North Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventist in the year, 2007. In the meantime, in an election proceeding for the post of President of SEIU there arose a dispute among the members and as a result of the same, false complaint came to be lodged by the 2nd respondent herein and he was transferred to Thanjavur?Karikal section. In violation of Bye-law one Mr.Edision Samuvel was appointed as an acting President of the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the newly appointed President has conducted the Constituency meeting in April, 2010.
6.The fact remains that in an earlier round of litigation with regard to elections to NTC were scheduled to be conducted for 2012 ? 2017 tenure, there was a direction by this Court in CRP(PD)(MD)No.199 of 2012 by concurring with an Order passed in I.A.No.428 of 2011 in O.S.No.548 of 2011, holding that for the succeeding tenure thereon for 2012 to 2017, fresh election has to be conducted according to the Bye- Law and it was further made clear by this Court that the 2nd respondent shall continue in his capacity till the election process is completed. Thus, it is clear that this Court has already issued a direction to conduct election afresh thereon for the year 2012 to 2017.
7.In the meantime, the 2nd respondent Pr.Sam Sudhakar filed yet another suit in O.S.No.852 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsiff, Tiruchirappalli by leveling allegations that the petitioners herein and the respondents 3 to 6 have conducted lawless Meetings on 29.04.2012 and 22.05.2012 to project themselves as if they are the newly elected office bearers to NTC, though the fact remains that they have no power to call for such meeting. Hence, he filed an application in I.A.No.563 of 2012 seeking for interim injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 6 herein and the petitioners herein from preventing Pr.Sam Sudhakar to administer the NTC continuously.
8.The said I.A. was allowed by the learned Judge vide an order dated 22.06.2012 holding that the meetings said to have taken place on 29.04.2012 and 22.05.2012 as illegal and thereby those meetings were set-aside and in so doing the Court below held that the 2nd respondent herein shall continue his office till the election process is completed.
9.It is further disclosed that again due to some difference of opinions between the parties, the then proposed election for 2012 to 2017 was unable to be conducted in the year 2012. After thoughtful dialogues and discussions, an agreement dated 13.03.2014 was came to be entered into between the 2nd respondent herein and others namely one K.Chelladurai on behalf of SEIU and R.John on behalf of SUD resolving to conduct a free and fair election for the tenure commencing from the year 2014. The 2nd respondent herein and the other parties to the agreement concurred to conduct the then election for the year 2014 peacefully and successfully. The 2nd respondent, in furtherance of Election proposal was disbursed with all emoluments and monetary benefits arisen out of his preceding service. Thereupon Election Notification was issued and election was successfully conducted.
10.At this juncture, the 1st respondent herein who is the own brother of 2nd respondent herein has filed the above suit challenging the agreement dated 13.03.2014 as illegal as the same was entered by Pr.Sam Sudhakar without consultation and involvement of EC members decided to conduct election by convening constituency Session on 29.05.2014 and sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from convening the meeting and election. In the said suit though the 1st respondent herein strenuously contends that the agreement dated 13.03.2014 entered upon by his blood brother Pr.Sam Sudhakar does not have legal sanctity and binding force over the 3rd respondent institution, it is categorically and persistently contended by him that his brother the 2nd respondent has to remain in the post of President till the election process attained finality. This Court is unable to appreciate the said stand of the 1st respondent blowing hot and cold at the same time. If the averments in the plaint are to be taken true, then obviously the 1st respondent should have sought for an injunction restraining his brother from discharging his duty as President, since the agreement is said to have been illegally entered by Pr.Sam Sudhakar without consultation and involvement of EC members against the interest of 3rd respondent. But contrarily though he agitates the agreement as unenforceable, he prays that his brother should be continued to act as President.
11.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel that nevertheless the 1st respondent was not a party to the above agreement, but having the capability to mark the Original Agreement vested with Pr.Sam Sudhakar by the 1st respondent as Ex-P13. This would show clandestinely and transparently that the Suit is being filed at the instance of the 2nd respondent to stall the Election proceeding in one way or by other. It is seen from the impugned order that the Court below also has rightly found that Suit is being filed at the instance of the 2nd respondent to stop the Election proceeding and the relevant observation made in the impugned order vide para 3 is extracted hereunder ?Similarly prudence will apparently suggest that the very suit in O.S.No.615 of 2014 has been filed at the instance of the first respondent Pr.Sam Sudhakar, otherwise, the original of Ex.P13 could not have been filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein Edward Daniel Chandrasekhar who is none other than the blood brother of the 2nd respondent, Pr. Sam Sudhakar?. Hence the learned senior counsel would submit that it is a fit case to strike off the plaint by invoking the powers conferred to this Hon?ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since the plaintiff/1st respondent herein abused the process of the Court by filing the above vexatious suit.
12.Further, it is shocking to this Court that the 2nd respondent herein Pastor Sam Suthakar also has filed a separate suit in O.S.No.761 of 2016 before the learned I Additional District Munsiff, Tiruchirappalli and along with the said suit, he filed an application in I.A.No.607 of 2016 seeking for interim injunction restraining the defendants therein from convening of Quinquennial Constituency Session of SEIU of Seventh-day Adventists at Vellore on 15th to 17 September, 2016 in violation of the earlier orders passed in I.A.No.563 of 2012 in O.S.No.852 of 2012 and in I.A.No.564 of 2014 in O.S.No.615 of 2014 and connected proceedings and the same was granted by the Court below by order dated 15.09.2016. In the considered opinion of this Court that the said suit by the 2nd respondent herein is also a sheer violation of abuse of process of law.
13.Thus, the case on hand is a classic example of an individual who was previously elected and continuing in the post by virtue of creating disputes by setting up false claims through his bother has successfully stalled the Election process for all these years right from 2007 and managed to act as a President. The act of the 2nd respondent is a deed of 'law maker should not be a law breaker? in other words ?fences eating the crops' and the same is unacceptable.
14.In the said factual background the learned trial Judge by allowing I.A.No.565 of 2014 in O.S.No.615 of 2014 vide order dated 17.09.2014 has granted Injunction as prayed for by the 1st respondent restraining the respondents 4 to 6 and the petitioners herein from assuming Charge over the 3rd respondent association and in so doing the Court below invoking its inherent power under Section 151 CPC also set aside the Election conducted on 29.05.2014. Aggrieved over the said order, the revision petitioners have filed appeal in C.M.A.No.23 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruchirappalli and the same was dismissed by order dated 04.11.2015 and thereby confirmed the order of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved over the order passed in the above C.M.A., the revision petitioners have come up with this civil revision petition questioning the orders of the Courts below as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable in law and hence prays to allow this C.R.P.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that since the 2nd respondent herein has no right to entered into an agreement which is against the spirit of the bye-law and therefore the 1st respondent herein as a member of NTC has every right to challenge the Agreement dated 13.03.2014 by filing the above suit. There are so many irregularities have been committed by the petitioners herein and respondents and therefore the election to NTC could be conducted only after setting right all the irregularities. The interim order passed by the Learned Trial Judge need not be interfered at all by this Hon?ble Court. The learned counsel would further submit that the plaint cannot be struck off, since the above civil revision is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
16.It is relevant to note here that in the said order dated 17.09.2014 made in I.A.No.565 of 2014 in O.S.No.615 of 2014 a direction was issued to implement the order made in I.A.No.563 of 2012 dated 22.06.2012 that Fresh election thereon for the year from 2012 to 2017 has to be conducted and till the completion of election in the interregnum period, the 2nd respondent herein shall continue as the President of NTC.
17.It is pertinent to note here that the 1st respondent herein has also filed yet another application in I.A.No.307 of 2017 in O.S.No.615 of 2014 sought for a direction, to direct the 2nd respondent herein i.e., his brother to chair all the meetings as per bye-law with a further direction not to conduct any type of meeting either on 28th and 29th or any other date at anywhere in the jurisdiction of North Tamil Conference without the presence and knowledge of the respondents 2 and 3 herein. The said application was also allowed by the Court below by order dated 27.04.2017.
18.In sheer fraud and collusion the impugned orders is being obtained by the 1st respondent in conspiracy with the 2nd respondent and thus it would be suffice to strike down of the plaint being an abuse of process of Court. The Courts below are deceived and misled as to material circumstances and its process is being abused, resulting in the delivery of the impugned orders, which ought not to have been rendered considering the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein.
19.It is well settled Law and the Hon?ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that all controversies and disputes arising out of an election has to be necessarily challenged after the post-election, so that the election proceedings are not overdue, unsettled and arrested. In other words, it has to be seen that nothing is done, which has the effect of protracting or obstructing the election.
20.This is a case where the 1st respondent at the instance of his brother, the 2nd respondent has played active role with hawk-eye that election is not conducted for all these years, so that the 2nd respondent would remain and occupy the Office bearer. These materials would clearly demonstrate that the 1st respondent has played corrupt practice at the instance of his brother, in ensuring that no election to NTC could be conducted.
21.In actual, the learned Judge ought to have realized that the 1st respondent was neither a participant of the election nor a delegate nor even a voter and as such he cannot question the conduction of the election or the agreement, which appears to be executed by the 2nd respondent and others acting in their Official capacity as representatives of their respective institutions.
22.It is needless to say that an order of injunction of blanket order restraining candidate from taking charge is impermissible, when materials available to show prima-facie a fraud is played upon the Court at the instance of the 1st respondent having vested interest to prevent election and to see that the 2nd respondent continues in his Office without facing election.
23.More so, it is seen that one of the final claims of the 1st respondent was that election should not be allowed to be conducted on 29.05.2014 or is such election conducted the results has to be withheld and new office bearers ought not to be allowed to take charge of the administration. When such being the main prayer of the suit, Injunction petition was filed seeking to restrain the conduction of election on 29.05.2014 and to restrain the respondents 4 to 6 and the petitioners from assuming new office. Hence it is needless to say that the prayer in the application for interim relief is granted, the same would amount to Decreeing of the Main suit.
24.At this juncture, it is relevant to note here that it is well settled by the Hon?ble Apex Court in matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sukhi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 733, that by an interim order, a final relief cannot be granted. In other words no interim relief, which amounts to a final relief, should be granted at the initial stage.
25.Again it would be relevant to look into yet another decision of the Hon?ble Apex Court, in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. And Ors. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and Anr., reported in AIR 1995 SC 1499, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of grant of interim relief to final relief.
26.However regardless of the above settled, legal preposition it is seen that the Courts below have erred in granting an Interim Injunction amounting to Decreeing of the main suit.
27.In the said circumstances, this Court of the firm opinion that the filing of the suit is an abuse of process of law and is an off-spring of evil design by the 1st and 2nd respondent to stall the election proceedings through Court. At this juncture, this Court like to emphasis that in as much as the duty of this Court while coming across such abusive suits, it is a bounden duty to prevent such abuse of process of law and Court by striking out the Plaint.
28.In this situation it would be apposite to rely upon the following decision of this Court made in the matter of N.A.Chinnasamy vs. S.Vellingirinathan reported in 2013 (6) CTC 809, whereby after elaborate discussion as to the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and the suits which are liable to be struck down, it is held as follows:
?26.Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, referring N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishna Murthy, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 thus:
"Unending period of launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy."
27. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, its aim being to secure quiet with the community, to suppress fraud and perjury to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. Hence while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to go through and consider the whole pleading of the plaintiff, for which the averments of the written statement shall be gone into. It has been made clear that the plaint could be rejected, as per the averments of the pleading of the plaintiff that (1) where there is no cause of action to seek the relief sought for in the suit (2) the suit is barred by any statute and (3) if the suit being filed is found as an abuse of process of law. If any one of the aforesaid grounds is established, the Court can invoke Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. When a revision petition is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, the requirement to struck off the plaint is more than what is required to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. If filing of the suit itself is a clear abuse of process, based on the plaint averments and the admitted facts of the plaintiff, this Court can pass appropriate orders to strike off the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, merely, based on the inordinate delay or the grounds raised under the Limitation Act, plaint cannot be rejected. If the plaintiff, having sufficient knowledge about the occurrence, after a lapse of time, without any bonafide intention, approaches the Court, after the period of limitation, the same shall be presumed as an abuse of process of Court. If the suit filed is an abuse of process of law and Court, this Court can pass appropriate orders, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint, in order to prevent abuse of process of Court and to meet the ends of justice.
28. In RM.Subbiah v. S.Ramakrishnan & others, reported in 2012-1-LW 437, this Court (K.VENKATARAMAN, J), has held that normally plaint cannot be rejected, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, however, if a party comes to the Court with unclean hands and re-agitates the matters, Courts are not powerless to exercise its discretion in putting a full stop to the same and accordingly, the suit was ordered to be struck off under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
29.In Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society v. S.R.Ejaz, reported in 2009 (5) CTC 710, this Court (K.K.SASIDHARAN, J) has held that Court cannot be a tool in the hands of vexatious litigants and that would be a mockery of justice to permit respondent therein to enjoy luxury of re- litigation.
30.In Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai v. Selvaraj, reported in 2009 (2) CTC 57, this Court (S.PALANIVELU, J), has held that provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are not exhaustive, however Court has got inherent powers to see that vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume time of the Court and accordingly, Court can reject the plaint, if allegations in plaint reveals an abuse of process of law.
31.In Seeni alias Sundarammal v. Ramasamy Poosari, reported in 2000 (III) CTC 74, this Court (A.RAMAN,J), has held that process of Court should not be misused or abused but shall be used bonafidely and properly. The Court should prevent improper use of litigative process. The question whether litigation is frivolous or abuse of process has to be judged from the angle of interest of justice and public policy. As the litigation had abused process of Court, it was held that High Court, while exercising its power of superintendence can step in, where there is blatant violation of process of Court.
32.In Maria Soosai and another v. Esakkiammal, reported in 1999-1-LW 727, this Court (S.S.SUBRAMANI, J), relying on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, (1982 (2) AIR SCW 116), has held thus:
"Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of Court, especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Courts' discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised and exercised only in special cases. "
33.In Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v. R.Srinivasan, reported in 2010 (4) CTC 690, this Court (A.SELVAM, J) has held that alternative remedy under CPC is not a bar to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
34.In RamiahAsari v. KurshadBegaum, reported in 1999 (I) CTC 600, this Court (S.S.SUBRAMANI,J), relying on the decision in K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573, held that the Court should invoke its inherent power to strike off plaint when it comes to the conclusion that the claim has been made only for collateral purpose or is spurious one or of frivolous nature or improper use of machinery of Court or its continued prosecution results in vexatious litigation.
35.In K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
"One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the Court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the Courts discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The Court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding."
29.Further reliance is made by this Court over the decision made in the matter of S.R.Nanda Kishore vs The Body Of Villagers (2013) 8 MLJ 585, wherein the scope of power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dealt as following that ?20.In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 657, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the power of High Court under Article 227 thus:
"22. ... It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suomotu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar."
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court is empowered not only to quash or set aside any impugned proceeding, judgment or order but also to make such directions, on the facts and circumstances of each case and accordingly, this Court may also issue directions, by way of guiding the subordinate Court or Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice.
22.In Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while speaking through Mr.Justice. V.R.KrishnaIyer, has observed as follows:
"The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.
5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the Court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits."
23.In K.Modi v. K.N.Modi, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph number 44 as follows:
"44. ... The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res-judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted."
24. In a notable decision, in Mcllkenny v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force, reported in (1980) 2 All ER 227, the Court of appeal of England struck out the pleading on the ground that the action was an abuse of the process of the Court, since it raised an issue identical to that which had been finally determined at the plaintiffs' earlier criminal trial. The Court said even when it is not possible to strike out the plaint on the ground of issue estoppel, the action can be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court, since a party relitigate a question or issue, which has already been decided against him and the aforesaid decision of the Court of Appeal of England was also referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision.
25. It is a well settled law that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, involves a duty on the part of the High Court to keep all Court within its jurisdictional bounds to prevent abuse of process of Court. This Court has got inherent jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of process of Court and passing order to struck off plaint from the file of the Court, if it is a clear abuse of process of law and Court, as per the plaint averments and the relief sought for by the party seeking the relief.?
30.Thus the above Decisions would indisputably expose the scope of unfettered power conferred upon this Court under Article 227 to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law and Court. Thus no doubt that the above decisions would clearly demonstrate that this Court has all power to strike of a plaint for abuse of law or process by the plaintiff.
31.Whereas, now the next question arises before this Court is as to whether power under Article 227 of Constitution can be invoked suo moto, while exercising powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to secure the ends of justice. Interestingly the above question is in fact earlier answered by this Court in the matter of Annapoornni v. Janaki reported 1991 (1) LW 141 in view of typical case of miscarriage of justice to rectify the same, the Learned Brother Judge had exercised his powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
?This is a typical case of miscarriage of justice which should be rectified the moment it comes to the notice of the Court. It is only for that reason; I am exercising my powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.?
32.The said legal preposition came to be reiterated by this Court in the matter of Varada Reddiar And Anr. vs Jayachandran And Ors. reported in 1996 (2) CTC 611, holding that the moment when this Court comes across a fraud or abuse of process of law, then to prevent miscarriage of powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be invoked at the very occasion instantaneously. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder:
?9. In this connection, it is better to follow a decision of the Court reported in Annapoornni v. Janaki 1991 (1) LW 141. When the revision petition came up for hearing, SrinivasanJ, treated it as a suomotu revision petition, by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? by holding so it was further the Learned Judge by holding as following that ?This is a typical case of miscarriage of justice which should be rectified the moment it comes to the notice of the Court. It is only for that reason, I am exercising my powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.? had invoked his power vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
?.. The case on hand is also similar. A decree which is beyond the scope of the suit has been granted, thereby depriving certain Temples of their properties. A wrongful gain has been obtained by the plaintiffs, respondents 1 and 2 herein. The Court below has been driven to pass a decree and the passing of the same is resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this is a fit case where I have to exercise my powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.?.
33.In this Context it would also be relevant to look into decision of this Court in S.R.Nanda Kishore v.Body of Villagers. reported in (2013) 8 MLJ585 enunciating that wherever there is abuse of process of Court, either the Trial Court or this Court can straightaway strike out the plaint without even an application under Order 7 Rule 11.
34.From the above decisions of the Hon?ble Apex Court and this Court the unfettered power conferred upon this Court under Article 227 is very wide with purpose to secure the interest of justice and that apart this Court is having power of superintendence under Article 227 to supervise and to look out the affairs and judicial function of the subordinate Courts. And where there is a clear abuse of process of law and Court, it is bounden duty of this Court to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India to struck down the subject plaint, in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and the Court.
35.That apart, from the decisions above, the moment this Court comes to the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein has committed fraud upon the Court, then to prevent the abrasion of justice or abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice the powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be invoked at the very occasion instantaneously. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to exercise the power of superintendence conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the plaintiff /1st respondent herein has committed blatant violation of process of Court by filing the above frivolous suit and hence, the plaint is liable to be struck off from its file.
36.For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the above settled legal pronouncements, this Court find that the filing of the above suit by the 1st respondent herein itself is a clear abuse of process of Court and law, based on the plaint averments and the admitted facts recited in the plaint and as well the prayer sought for thereby. In view of the elaborate discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation to strike of the plaint as it is a clear case of sheer abuse of process of Court, accordingly the plaint in O.S.No.615 of 2014 is struck off from its file.
37.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed in C.M.A.No.23 of 2014 dated 04.11.2015 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the order and decree made in I.A.No.565 of 2014 in O.S.No.615 of 2014 dated 17.11.2014, on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsiff, Tiruchirappalli, are hereby set aside and the plaint in O.S.No.615 of 2014, on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsiff, Tiruchirappalli shall stand struck down.
38.Now, this Court wants to give a quietus to the issue involved in this case. As discussed above, one way or other the election for the North Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventist has been delayed. As this Court has struck off the suit in O.S.No.615 of 2014 on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsiff, Tiruchirappalli, in the interest of justice and also for the better administration of North Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventist, this Court deems it proper and appropriate to appoint a Court Commissioner to conduct election for North Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventist, Thiruchirappalli as per the Bye-law. Hence this Court hereby appoints the Hon?ble Mr.Justice V. Dhanapalan, Retired Judge of this Court as Election Officer to conduct the election of North Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventist, Thiruchirappalli and his remuneration is fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) and one Mr.R.Karunanidhi, Advocate is also appointed to assist the Election Officer and his remuneration is fixed at a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same shall be paid by the 3rd respondent. Apart from the above remuneration, the election officer and his assistant shall be given proper and hygienic accommodation as long as the completion of the election process. The election to the above said North Tamil Conference of Seventh day Adventist, Thiruchirappalli shall be completed as per bye-law within a reasonable time, but not less than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made it clear that all the parties concerned are strictly directed to offer their fullest co-operation to the Election Officer and his Assistant to ensure the free and fair poll in a democratic way to secure the ends of justice.
39.If any situation is warranting, the Hon'ble Election Officer is empowered to seek Police protection from the Local Police Station and if any such protection is sought for, the Local Police is directed to provide the adequate Police Protection immediately without any delay till the election is completed.
40.The registry is directed to communicate this order to the Election Officer, the Hon?ble Mr.Justice V.Dhanabalan (Retd. Judge of Madras High Court) and the Assistant Election Officer Mr.R.Karunanidhi, E.No.2919/08, Advocate, 99, Law Chamber, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-99, Mobile No:8825830098.
41.After filing the Election Completion report by the Hon'ble Election Officer, the Registry is directed to list the case immediately.
To The II Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
.