Madras High Court
Devangudi Ramasamy Mazhavarayar ... vs Srimushnam Maivazhi Tamil Sabai ... on 5 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)1MLJ174
ORDER N. Arumugham, J.
1. The first two revisions viz., C.R.P. Nos. 79 and 1012of 1995 are directed against the order passed by the District Judge of South Arcot Vallalar District at Cuddalore in C.M.A. Nos. 10 of 1994 and 37 of 1993, dated 18.10.1994 and 7.7.1994 respectively confirming the fair and final order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in I.A. No. 673 of 1992 in O.S. No. 112 of 1992, dated 22.12.1992, thereby making the interim injunction granted by the trial court absolute till the disposal of the suit, challenging the propriety and legality of the same. The first respondent in I.A. No. 673 of 1992, by name, Devangudi Ramasami Malavarayar Educational Society, by its Treasurer Anbumani, and the second respondent in I.A. No.673 of 1992, by name, Matharasi respectively filed these revisions C.R.P. Nos. 79 of 1995 and 1012 of 1995.
2. The third revision petition C.R.P. No. 894 of 1995 is directed against the order of interim injunction granted by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram in I.A. No. 2153 of 1994 in O.S. No. 998 of 1994 in favour of the petitioner in the subject-matter of the earlier revisions viz., Srimushnam Maivazhi Tamil Sabai represented by its Secretary, Sengole against the District Educational Officer, Cuddalore and this revision petition is directed by one Ramachandran, a third party. Similarly, C.R.P. No. 1097 of 1995 vas filed by the said Ramachandran against the interim order of injunction passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram I.A. No. 234 of 1995 in O.S. No. 49 of 1995. Both the subsequent revisions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the very propriety and legality of the orders of interim injunction granted by the respect ve trial courts against respondent concerned.
3. Since the respective parties to the earlier two revisions are one and the same, indulged in tigating their rights before the courts below in connection with some facts and question of law amongst themselves in I.A. No. 673 of 1992 in O.S. No. 112 of 1992 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, and since a third party, by name Ramachandran has filed the subsequent two revision petitions challenging the orders of interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent in the earlier two revisions, relating to the same institutions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thus involving a common question of law and identical and interrelated facts to be decided, with the consent of the Bar for the respective parties, all the four revision petitions are disposed of together by delivering this common order.
4. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 112 of 1992 by name, Srimushnam Maivazhi Tamil Sabai represented by its Secretary, has filed the petition I.A. No. 673 of 1992 against the respondents/defendants therein, who are the revision petitioners in both the earlier revisions before the court below for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men and servants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful and smooth running of the administration of the two educational institutions, viz., Arulananda High School and Manimegalai Orphanage. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in I.A. No. 673 of 1992 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 112 of 1992 is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the revision petitioners in both the earlier revision petitions are hereinafter referred to as respondents 1 and 2 respectively and the petitioner in both the subsequent revision petitions, C.R.P. Nos. 894 and 1097 of 1995, by name, Ramachandran is hereinafter referred to as the third respondent.
5. The petitioner is claimed to be the founder of the two educational institutions, by name Arulananda High School and Manimegalai Orphanage and as such the petitioner is entitled to exercise all rights of management and administration of the same. It is also alleged that the respondents 1 and 2 were trying to assume powers of the management for which they have no right, but they are intermeddling with the affairs of the educational institutions of the petitioner and thus, they are causing inconvenience and disturbance to the petitioner in respect of the management and administration of the said two educational institutions and in view of their attempt, the petitioner was unable to function freely and peacefully for which the defendants 4 to 6 in the suit have passed orders hurriedly and hastily without perusing the documents. The petitioner claimed that the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and for the purpose of smooth and normal running of the school, interim injunction was prayed against the respondents 1 and 2 restraining them from interfering with the right of management and exercise of powers in respect of the two schools.
6. The first respondent, by name, Devangudi Ramasami Malavarayar Educational Society by its Treasurer, Anbumani, resisted the said application by inter alia contending that the petitioner was the founder of the said two schools and the petitioner have come forward with the application to get an order of injunction maliciously by suppressing the real fact and as such, there is no prima facie case for the petitioner. It is the case of the first respondent that the institutions by name, Arulananda High School and Manimegalai Orphanage, though were founded by the petitioner originally, were transferred to the first respondent society by a resolution of Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam dated 30.6.1996, in and by which, all rights of the management were transferred to the first respondent by a valid agreement dated 3.7.1966 and as such, entire charge of the educational institutions was handed over on 16.7.1966 and thereafter, the educational authorities of the Government have approved the first respondent's management and correspondentship and after 16.7.1966, Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam has got no interest, right and possession over the said schools and the first respondent alone has got continuous management and correspondentship and is also exercising all rights of controlling over the said two educational institutions. The two schools were properly controlled and managed by one Gopalakrishnan, who was formerly a Member of Parliament and treasurer of the first respondent, viz., Devangudi Ramasami Mazhavarayar Educational Society and after his death, the first respondent has become the Treasurer and has been functioning as Correspondent of the educational agency, having entire control and management of the said institutions. It is also contended that Devangudi Gopalakrishnan Girls Higher Secondary School with the approval and grant of the Government, had also been maintained by the said Gopalakrishnan and after the death of Gopalakrishnan, his wife, the second respondent and her henchmen have instigated the petitioner to file a suit in O.S. No. 305 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Vridhachalam and in I.A. No. 732 of 1985, interim injunction was obtained against the first respondent and as the petition was seriously contested by the first respondent as well as by the Government, the interim injunction grated already was vacated on 12.6.1985. There was no appeal preferred against that order and the suit was also transferred to the file of the District Munsif, Chidambaram and renumbered as O.S. No. 739 of 1985 which is still pending disposal. According to the first respondent, the second respondent by name, Matharasi has colluded with one of the members of the first respondent society, by name, one M.N. Ramasamy and disturbed the peaceful functioning of the schools and hence, the said Ramasami was removed and against him an order of injunction was also obtained in O.S. No. 53 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram by the first respondent. As a counter blast, the defendant in that suit set up one of the teachers, by name. Ganesan to file a suit in the same court in O.S. No. 94 of 1991 and obtained an order of injunction against the first respondent. However, both the applications were heard and the court was pleased to allow the injunction in O.S. No. 53 of 1991 and dismiss O.S. No. 94 of 1991. The High Court was also pleased to suspend the injunction order in O.S. No. 94 of 1991. The sole object of the petitioner is to grab the management with the help of the injunction. The petitioner could not legally maintain the petition for injunction, as already the same relief was dismissed by the court. The entire management, control, possession and administration all rest with the first respondent. The petitioner has got absolutely no right to interfere with the affairs of the management.
7. The second respondent, by name, Matharasi seems to have resisted the above petition by inter alia contending that the petitioner has no competence to represent Srimushnam Maivazhi Tamil Sabai and the respondents have not tried to usurp and assume the power of management and they have not intermeddled and caused inconvenience to the petitioner. The second respondent claimed that she is in management of the schools referred to in the petition and the petitioner was never in management of the schools. The transfer of management was duly approved and recognized by the competent authorities. The petitioner society have never exercised any control over the management of the two educational institutions. She also denied that Thirurriuttam Tamil Kazhagam was changed as Maivazhi Tamil Sabai and these two have no interconnection whatsoever and they are independent and separate entities with different society registration numbers and the claim of the petitioner that the Sabai was formerly known as Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam is not correct and the petitioner has no locus standi to represent Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam as it has no legal entity. It is also contended that the petitioner society has not become a defunct society and the original documents have been tampered with. In substratum, the second respondent contended that she was the correspondent of (he schopjs in the year 1971 and later on, the correspondentship was transferred to her husband, Gqpalakrishnanan with the approval of the District Educational Officer and, there was disr pute in the management between Anbumai and his brother Ramasami and Anbazhagan on the one hand and the second respondent and other members of the educational agency on other hand. The three brothers were planning to sell and transfer the management of the school to a third party for a fabulous amount and while it was objected to by others, litigations and court proceedings have emerged out and due to the troubles, the first respondent joined hands with the petitioner and one Govindasamy to prohibit this respondent from functioning as Secretary of the schools and hence, there cannot be an order of injunction against this respondent.
8. The parties have not let in any oral evidence, but however, documents viz., Exs. P-1 toP-15 and Exs. R-1 to R-14 on behalf of both parties were marked and after hearing both sides with their respective contentions, learned Subordinate Judge. Chidambaram, by passing an order, allowed the petition and thereby made the interim injunction absolute in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and aggrieved at this, challenging the correctness and validity of the same, C.M.A. No. 10 of 1994 was preferred by the first respondent and C.M.A. No. 37 of 1993 was preferred by the second respondent before the District Judge, Cuddalore. On hearing the respective parties in appeals above referred to, and on a reappraisal of the entire adduced evidence, learned District Judge dismissed both the civil miscellaneous appeals where by confirming the order of interim injunction granted by the trial court by passing the impugned orders and aggrieved at this, both the respondents have come forward with these two revision petitions, C.R.P. Nos. 79 and 1012 of 1995 respectively, challenging the propriety and legality of the same.
9. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, viz., Srimushnam Maivazhi Tamil Sabai represented by its Scretary has, filed a suit O.S. No. 998 of 1994 on the fire of the District Munsif, Chidambaram against the responrdents 1 and 3 and the District Educational Officer, Cuddalore as defendants 1 to 3 for the relief of declaration that the order of D.E.O., Cuddalore in R.O.C. No. 1 1885/6/91, dated 13.7.1994 is null and Void and also for permanent injunction restraining the District Educational Officer, his men and subordinates from giving effect to the order mentioned above and in that suit, the plaintiff has filed a petition. I.A. No. 2153 of 1994 for temporary injunction to the above said effect and also obtained ad interim injunction as prayed for. The third respondent, by name; Ramachandran aggrieved at this order has field C.R.P. No. 894 of 1995 challenging the proppriety and legality of the said interim order granted by the trial court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia.
10. Similarly, another suit, O.S. No. 49 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner, by name, Meyvazhi Tamil Sabai, Srimushnam, represented by its Secretary, Sengole and one another, by name, Govindasamy before the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram against the District Educational Officer, Secondary Education, Cuddalore and the Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore for the reliefs of permanent injunction restraining the District Educational Officer from issuing cheque in respect of the grant for the D.G.M. Higher Secondary School and D.G.K. Girls High School, Sethiathope to any-one other than the second plaintiff, Govindasamy and mandatory injunction against the District Educational Officer, directing the District Educational Officer to issue the cheque in respect of the grant for the abovesaid two schools in favour of the said Govindasamy, with a direction for making disbursement of salary to the staff members of the said schools and in I.A. No. 234 of 1995, the plaintiffs, in O.S. No. 49 of 1995 obtained ad interim injunction on 30.3.1995. Aggrieved at this, the third respondent, by name, Ramachandran who is not party to the proceedings above referred to has filed this revision, C.R.P. No. 1097 of 1995 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity and legality of the interim order.
11. In all the four revision petitions, several miscellaneous petitions were filed on behalf of the respective parties for various reliefs, all interim in nature, but however, the granting of such reliefs, depends upon the relief being granted in the main revision petitions and hence, the above miscellaneous petitions are to be disposed of along with main revision petitions, as consequential disposal.
12. In the context of the above rival position, factual aspects and circumstances, the following points arose for consideration:
(1) Whether the impugned order of injunction granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in I.A. No.673 of 1992 dated 22.2.1992, as confirmed by the lower appellate court has become vitiated with every legal laches or impropriety and if so, whether the earlier two revisions can be maintained?
(2)Whether the subsequent two revisions are maintainable and if so, to what remedy, the parties are entitled to?
13. Point 1 : I have gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as lower appellate court carefully and very meticulously, with reference to the documents adverted to in the said order and also relied on by and on behalf of the respective parties before the trial court. The two educational institutions, viz., Arulananda High School and Manimegalai Orphanage were originally founded by Srimushnam Tamil Sabai during 1949 which were later registered in the year 1956 and since then, they have been administered and maintained by one Ramamoorty, as correspondent and since he stayed at Meyvazhi Ashram, the charge of management and administration of the institutions was entrusted to one Gopalakrishnan who was formerly a Member of Parliament and who had created a trust in the name, Devangudi Ramasami Mazhavarayar Educational Society, aspired to get recognition from Srimushnam Tamil Sabai and all these matters are not much controverted among the parties herein. It is stated that on 24-4.1967, a resolution was passed in the Generalbody of Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam, but however, this averment was denied by the first respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that he being the founder of the said institutions has retained all rights of management and administration of the same and the respondents have no right or interest to intermeddle with the affairs of the administration and management of the said institutions which the respondents have denied. Their contention is that the correspondentship and the management of the said institutions were transferred to one Gopalakrishnan, a former Member of Parliament who had managed and administered the said institutions by changing the name and after his demise, both the respondents are each claiming the rights to administer and possession of the same. Placing reliance upon sever documents filed by the petitioner as well as respondents, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court found that there was aprimafacie case in favour of the petitioner and the balance of convenience lay in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, passed the order of injunction. De hors the substratum of the contentions raised by the respective parties the following documents on the basis of which, much reliance was placed, assume significance to protest the prima facie possession of the petitioner. Ex. A-1 dated 28.3.1956 is the registration certificate of Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam which according to the petitioner, changed subsequent into Meyvazhi Tamil Sabai, Srimushnam as it was registered under the Registration Act under Ex. A-9 on 29.11.1982. According to the respondents, the two registrations do not depict one institution, but, two different and distinct entities and Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam has not been changed into Meyvazhi Tamil Sabai and Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam has become a defunct society on 16.7.1984 itself as evident from the Gazette Notification, Ex. B-3 marked in this case much stress was laid by the learned senior counsel, Mr. G. Masilamani to substantiate the above contention. A perusal of the same would show that Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam has been declared as defunct society. But, however, the contention of the petitioner is that only Srimushnam Tamil Kazhagam has been changed into Meyvazhi Tamil Sabai and the petitioner has managed the petitioner mentioned institutions. In this regard whether the members of the earlier institution have become the members of the earlier inst6itution or not under the relevant Rules or they are different is the matter to be gone into during the trial. With the mere change of nomenclature, by the reason of Gazette Notification of the defunct society, whether the new society with the old members has been formed or not is to be ascertained only during the trial.
14. Ex. A-15 is the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent. It shows that Srimushnam Tamil Kazhagam has also an alias name, Meyvazhi Tamil Sabai. Be that as it may, at this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has to locus standi to represent Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam. In this regard, as observed by the lower appellate Judge, whether both are one and the same institution or different has to be decided only in the suit by letting in adequate oral evidence and that cannot be decided in these revisions, at the stage of deciding the relief which is interim in nature; Ex. A-15, on a perusal would show that Srimushnam Tamil Kazhagam has also an alias name, Meyvazhi Tamil Kazhagam. The encumbrance certificate, marked as Ex. A-2 clinches the fact that Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam was the owner of the properties and one Ramamoorthy and one another were the original lessees Of the properties in which Srimushnam Tamil Sangam was functioning. It is also worthwhile to note that the contention of the respondents that Srimushnam Tamil Kazhagam letter transferred all rights of the educational institutions including the management to one D.R. Gopalakrishnan and he alone was managing the said institutions and after his death, the second respondent is managing. According to the first respondent, the second respondent is not managing the institutions and as such the first respondent has got every right to deal with the institutions and the petitioner can have to right in the said institutions, but, in contra, the petitioner claims the entire right of management.
15. Ex. A-3 is an agreement entered into for the transfer of correspondentship of Arulananda High School and Manimegaiai Orphanage which shows that the correspondentship alone was transferred to Gopalakrishnan and it has been specifically stated that only the correspondentship was transferred and not the management. By virtue of Ex. A-5, the proceedings of the' Director of Secondary Education reveals that the District Educational Officer was requested to clarify with regard to the new management and fresh agreement was also required if there as transfer of management and the new management should1 create a Cash endowment of Rs. 70,000 as in the cask of transfer of management and the resolution was not clear and accordingly, the District Educational Officer was requested to exairtine all the points and submit a clear report. The resolution marked under Ex. A-6 passed by the Srimushnam Tamil Kazhagamin the Generalbody Meeting convened in the year 1967 shows that even though the correspondentship was taken by Gopalakrishnan, (he entire management had to be retained by the management of Srimushnam Tamil Kazhagam and whenever it has become necessary, things have to be done only by Srimushnam Tamil Kazhagam and it has got every right to deal with that and Ex. A-6 is very clear that the correspondentship alone was transferred to Gopalakrishnan and not the entire management of the institutions. Thus, a careful perusal of the said document would show that it does not run as counter to the entire documents filed on behalf of the respondents. The proceedings of the District of Secondary Education, Ex. A-8 also appeals that the correspondentship alone was transferred to Gopalakrishnan. The above document would clinch the fact that the correspondentship Of the above two educational institutions was alone transferred to Gopalakrishnan and not the management of the said two institutions.
16. Ex. B-7, the proceedings of the District Educational Officer clinches the fact that the transfer of correspondentship of Arulananda High School, Sethiathope from Gopalakrishnan to Matharasi, the second respondent was approved with effect from 31.1.1971 and from Ex. B-7, it is made clear that only the correspondentship was alone transferred to the second respondent and certainly not the transfer of management of the institution was effected in favour of the second respondent. Ex. B-11 is also the proceedings appointing the second respondent as the Secretary for D.G.M. Higher Secondary School, Sethiathope, All the correspondentship was transferred to Gopalakrishnan and after him, it was transferred to the second respondent.
17. The additional documents filed by and on behalf of the second respondent and marked as Exs. B-15 to 24 would not render any help to improve the case of the respondents at this stage. As observed by the lower appellate court, Ex. B-23 is the memo of understanding entered into between the parties which shows that the second respondent and others as members of the Devangudi Ramasami Mazhavarayar Educational Society shall be entitled to run D.G.M. Higher Secondary School and Manimegalai Orphanage without any interference or obstruction from the parties of the first part or anyone claiming under or through them and the parties of the second part shall assist the parties of the first part in obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities and the parties of the second part agreed to co-operate and assist the first part in the management of the school, getting transfer of approval to the girls school and in all such requirements before the competent authority and if the competent Government authority refuse to accept or reject any application made by each of the parties jointly or separately for the relief necessary under the compromise the compromise will not come to an end or be terminated. Under this document, the party of the first part agreed to withdraw all the proceedings, suits, writs and appeals before the court without costs. It is noticed from the records that as stated in the agreement, suits pending were not withdrawn and as per the agreement, the matters mentioned therein were not effected and implemented and therefore, pursuant to the terms stipulated therein, the memo of compromise has not come into force and the documents referred to above clearly establish that only the correspondentship was transferred to Gopalakrishnan and not the entire management of the educational institutions. As was rightly observed by both the courts below, to the effect of the valid change of the management of correspondentship in pursuance of Ex. B-23, cash consideration of Rs. 70,000 has not been paid at all, now it has been claimed to be paid by the respondents.
18. Of course, it is true that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 305 of 1984 was transmitted to the District Munsifs Court, Chidambaram and the interim injunction granted in I.A. No. 732 of 1985 was vacated on 12.6.1985. In my considered Opinion the maintainability of the said suit already ordered to be transferred and renumbered as O.S. No.739 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Chidambaram has to be looked into only during the trial. As was rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge, the agreement dated 3.7.1966 said to have been entered into between the parties herein has not at all been produced. It is not the contention of either of the parties that the said document or with any other party. Ex. A-6 the resolution dated 24.4.1967 would clinch the fact that though the said Gopalakrishnan was the correspondent of the educational institutions, he would act in accordance only with the instructions of Thirumuttam Tamil, Kazhagam and therefore, both the courts below have concurred their views in finding out the prima facie case with the petitioner and in the context of the rival contentions, the order of interim injunction granted by the trial court has been made absolute. There is also evidence to show that under Ex. A-14, Thirumuttam Tamil Kazhagam with its life member has become the member of Meyvazhi Tamil Sabai. Tfie trial court, while considering the whole gamut of the case, has looked into every documentary evidence in detail and arrived at a correct conclusion that there exists a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and accordingly, the interim injunction was made absolute during the pendency of the suit. The very fact that the respondents have contended that the original Srimushnam Tamil Sabai has become defunct and it is not surviving and the later society has nothing to do with the original one as evident from the notification and therefore, the entire management of the educational institutions is deemed to be with either of the respondents, cannot be accepted in view of the rival contentions made by the respondents, for the one reason that the first respondent claims the right of management and administration of the educational institutions and the first respondent alleges that the second respondent is colluding with the petitioner. On the other hand, the second respondent has a leged that the change of the petitionerSabai was in collusion with the first respondent. In fact, there are other parties also against whom O.S. No. 998 of 1994 and O.S. No. 49 of 1995 before the District Munsifs Court, Chidambaram and the Sub Court, Chidambaram respectively and they are also pending as evident from C.R.P. Nos. 894 and 1097 of 1995. It is under these circumstances, I have to endorse my view with the concurrent findings of the both the courts below that the existence and availability of the prima facie case is in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and the balance of convenience is also in his favour and if no interim injunction is granted, the petitioner will be put to every prejudice and hardship and the impugned order is only temporary in nature to be in existence during the pendency of the suit and the parties are at every liberty to raise their rival contentions to substantiate their points and case during the trial and till then, the interim order has to be inforce. Having thus considered and perused the concurrent orders passed by the courts below, I am constrained to hold that their exists nothing to arrive at a different conclusion with that of the courts below and accordingly, I have to confirm the same. Therefore, the interim order of injunction granted by the lower court, as confirmed by the lower appellate court is hereby confirmed till the disposal of the suit and I do not come across with any legal laches or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the courts below, involved in both the earlier revision petitions.
19. Point 2: During the pendency of the earlier two revisions, the third respondent by name, Ramachandran filed these two subsequent revisions challenging the propriety of the ad-interim order granted by the trial court in both the cases under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He claims that he is the person authorised duly by the District Educational Officer as Secretary to the schools involved in the above case. Therefore, the order of the District Educational Officer, Cuddalore in Roc. No. 11885/6/91 dated 13.7.1994 is sought to be declared as null and void in O.S. No. 998 of 1994 by the petitioners and in I.A. No. 2153 of 1994 and interim order was also obtained by the petitioner against the District Educational Officer, Cuddalore preventing the District Educational Officer from giving effect to the said order. In O.S. No. 49 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram, the petitioner obtained interim injunction against the District Educational Officer, Secondary Education, Cuddalore not to issue cheque for the released grant to any one except to one Govindasamy. These two orders involving both the subsequent revisions are ad-interim in nature passed by the trial court concerned under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order under C.R.P. No. 1097 of 1995 is extracted as hereunder:
Heard. Documents perused. First petitioner has issued notice under Section 30, C.P.C. to the respondent 1 to approve the second petitioner as Secretary, nominated by the first petitioner, on 24.12.1994. R-1 has been directed by R-2 in his letter dated 20.1.1995 to approve second petitioner without prejudice to the judgment in O.S. No. 112 of 1992 of this Court. But so far, the first respondent has not taken any steps it is alleged. In the meanwhile, the argument that the grant must be disbursed to the person who is to be approved legally, is also acceptable. Prima facie case made out for granting ad interim injunction. Ad interim injunction and notice by 19.4.1995. Affidavit under Order 39, Rule 3(b) by 31.3.1995.
20. With regard to other C.R.P. No. 894 of 1995, the impugned order passed by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram in I.A. No. 2153 of 1994 in O.S. No. 998 of 1994 dated 22.12.1994 is extracted as hereunder:
Heard. Records perused. Prima facie case is made out. Ad interim injunction is granted. Affidavit under Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. to be produced on or before 23.12.1994 failing which the order. stands cancelled. Notice to respondent No. 3 by 13.1.1995.
In one of the above suits, the revision petitioner appears to be not a party. It it always open for him to file an application for impleading himself as a necessary party before the trial court. Order 39 of the Code provides that if an aggrieved party against whom an injunction order is granted, approaches the same court by filing a petition with adequate grounds to show that the grant of interim order against him is not correct, then remedy will be provided to such person against whom an order of injunction is passed. When such a remedy is provided by the statute, instead of exhausting the same before the trial court, which happened to have identified the prima facie case, approaching this Court by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution is not correct for the very reasoning that the revisional court is yet to know the nugget and details of the contentions or the grounds of the person against whom the order of injunction is passed which is interim in nature. It is well settled by now, by virtue of the various provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is always open to the third respondent/ revision petitioner in the subsequent two revisions to approach the trial court for the cancellation of the interim order granted already and under the same logic, it is always open to him to apply for getting himself impleaded in the suit in which he is not a party, if really he is interested and so advised. There is no semblance of evidence or materials to show that the revision petitioner in the letter two revisions had approached the trial court and the trial court declined to entertain his grievance, nor did adjudicate the same as provided by the law. It is therefore, under these circumstances, these two subsequent revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained since statutory remedy is provided under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and with the directions given above, both the subsequent revisions are liable to be dismissed. While saying so, I have not expressed any of my view with regard to the merits of the case in these two subsequent revisions.
21. In the result, for all the forgoing reasonings given above earlier two revisions above mentioned fail and stand dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the courts below in I.A. No.673 of 1992 in O.S. No. 112 of 1992 dated 22.12.1992 as confirmed by the lower appellate court is hereby confirmed. The subsequent two revisions also fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs for either of the parties under the circumstances.