Madras High Court
S.V.Lsv.Chinna Vadivel Chettiyar @ ... vs )Sellammal on 24 April, 2017
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.04.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1362 of 2008
and
MP(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2012
S.V.LSV.Chinna Vadivel Chettiyar @ S.Vadivelu ... Petitioner
vs.
1)Sellammal
2)P.Selvaraj
3)CT ARM K.Ramasamy Chettiar
4)Shaishri Saraswathi Construction Private Limited,
No.29/15, North Usman Road,
T.Nagar, Chenna-17
Through its Director Krishnamoorthy
S/o.Thiru Muthakrishnan
5)Teachers Veetu Vasathi Nala Arakattalai
Karur District rep by its organizer
43A, Subbaiya Pillai layout
Chinnandan Koil Road, Karur.
6)Ramalingam
7)P.Pitchai
8)A.Balasubramanniam
9)B.Venkatesan @ Velmurugan
10)B.Senthilkumar ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call
for the records relating to the plaint in O.S.No.56/08 on the file of learned
Principal District Munsif, Karur, and struck down the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For Respondent :
:ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike the plaint in O.S.No.56/08 filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, men, agents, servants subordinates in any manner creating any further documents in respect of the suit properties. The revision petitioner who is arrayed as 1st defendant in the said suit has sought for striking the plaint as the said plaint is vexatious and abuse of process of law.
2.The contention of the revision petitioner is that the Hon'ble High Court in earlier judgments have repeatedly held that the suit properties are not completely dedicated to Trust, but partially dedicated and the revision petitioner is entitled to deal with the property as per the Board resolution dated 21.06.1995. Further, some of the defendants shown in the plaint have already died and there is no sufficient and proper address for the remaining defendants. Since the plaintiffs have no cause of action or locus standi to file the suit, the suit deserves to be struck off.
3.Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, if anybody is aggrieved by a litigation without any cause of action, he is entitled to approach the Trial Court and place the said fact before the Trial Court and get redressal. When there is that procedure established under law to get redressal in such situation, without exercising that right and made of redressal Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked therefor.
4.In this case, certain facts which are stated in the grounds of revision can very well be placed before the Trial Court and after considering the same, the Trial Court can come to the conclusion whether the plaint deserves to be struck off or not. Without exercising that right, the revision petitioner has approached the High Court under Article 227.
5.Power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised by the High Court sparingly when there is a patent illegality or error in the functioning of the Subordinate Courts, both in the administration as well as judicial decision. This revision petition is filed without pointing out any such illegality being exercised by the Trial Court. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed.
6.It is submitted that during the pendency of this revision, the 1st defendant in the suit who is the revision petitioner before this Court died on 24.08.2011 leaving behind his three sons and daughter as his legal heirs. Hence, MP(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 have been filed to condone the delay in filing petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole petitioner. Since this Court is of the opinion that the revision petition itself is not maintainable, there is no necessity to pass any order in those petitions.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Principal District Munsif, Karur..