Madras High Court
M/S.Southern And Rajamani vs R.Srinivasan on 30 March, 2010
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/03/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRP PD(MD)No.463 of 2010 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2010 1.M/s.Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited Rep.by its Director V.R.Venkataswamy No.270, Goods Shed Road, Madurai-625 001. 2.M.K.P.Srinivasa Perumal 3.C.Venkatesan 4.G.Parimala 5.N.Vijayalakshmi 6.G.Jayanthi 7.C.Latha Maheswari 8.R.Soundarajan 9.R.Sekar 10.Usha Rani 11.Ramadevi 12.Estate of B.V.Ramachandra Naidu rep.by its Intermeddler V.R.Venkataswamy 13.R.Balaji 14.B.T.Padmavathi 15.Jayalakshmi 16.Leelavathi 17.Estate of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu rep.by its Intermeddler S.Meenalochini 18.Malleswari 19.V.R.Venkateswaran 20.G.Shenchulakshmi 21.G.Rajkumar 22.V.R.Rammohan 23.Estate of B.V.Balakrishna Naidu rep.by its Intermeddler V.B.Dhanalakshmi 24.V.B.Deenadayalan 25.V.B.Chandrasekaran 26.V.B.Baskaran 27.B.Lakshmikantham 28.V.Kanjana Mala 29.V.B.Venkataswamy 30.Estate of B.V.Bangaruswamy Naidu Rep.by its Intermeddler M.Thiruveni 31.Thiruvengadam 32.V.B.Venkatasubramanian 33.Estate of V.Mohanram Naidu rep.by its Intermeddler V.M.Balakrishnan 34. V.M.Gajapathi .. Petitioners/Defendants 1, 2 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24, 26 to 37 Vs 1.R.Srinivasan .. Respondent/plaintiff 2.Estate of B.V.Govindarajulu Naidu rep by its Intermeddler G.Sanjeevi Rajan 3.R.Vasantha 4.V.R.Narasimhalu .. Respondents/defendants 4, 7 and 25 Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. !For Petitioners ... Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior counsel for M/s.V.Ramajegadeesan ^For R - 1 ... Mr.G.Sridharan :ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai in respect of the revision petitioners.
2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai praying to pass a decree of specific performance and also for passing perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.
3. In the plaint it is averred that both the plaintiff and 25th defendant by name V.R.Narasimhalu have entered into a sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 and thereby the 25th defendant has agreed to sell the properties mentioned in the schedule for a sum of Rs.63,00,000/- to the plaintiff and on the date of sale agreement, the plaintiff has given a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of an advance and since the 25th defendant has failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, Original Suit No.3 of 2010 has been instituted for the reliefs sought for therein.
4. In the present civil revision petition it has been contended that the properties mentioned in the schedule in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 are belonged to the first defendant viz., M/s.Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited and subsequently the first defendant has been liquidated as per Company Application No.1503 of 2008 and the same has been confirmed by the High Court in Company Petition No.71 of 1974 and thereafter a liquidator has been appointed and now he is having administration over the same. Further it has been contended that the first respondent/plaintiff is not having cause of action so as to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 (revision petitioners). Under the said circumstances, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai is liable to be struck off in respect of the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.
5. Before pondering the rival submissions made by either counsel, it has become shunless to find out as to whether the first respondent/plaintiff is having cause of action so as to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. It has already been pointed out that Original Suit No.3 of 2010 has been instituted on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai on the basis of the alleged sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 entered into betwixt the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent /25th defendant.
6. The main attack made on the side of the revision petitioners is that since the agreement dated 20.09.200 has become emerged betwixt the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant, the revision petitioners are totally unnecessary parties and no cause of action has arisen so as to institute Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against them.
7. Cause of action means a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. Therefore, it is pellucid that for instituting a suit, there must be a cause of action against a person so as to obtain a remedy in Court.
8. The specific case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that he and fourth respondent/25th defendant have entered into sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 and thereby the fourth respondent/25th defendant has agreed to sell the properties mentioned in the schedule for a sum of Rs.63,00,000/- and thereby he received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of an advance.
9. In paragraph-2 of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000, it is stated like thus:
Whereas the vendor is seized and possessed of all the piece of vacant land in all measuring 1-82 acres comprised in various survey numbers situated at No.52, Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai, bearing patta No.5406, more fully described in the schedules A and B, absolutely free from encumbrances and the said property had originally belonged to one Southern Rajamani Transport Pvt. Ltd., a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act;
10. In paragraph-4 it is stated like thus:
Whereas prior to the filing of the said C.P.No.71 of 1974, a regular agreement had been drafted and as per the agreement, the Directors of the company had been allotted with distinct properties and accordingly the vacant land comprised in door No.52, Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai pertaining to the property more fully described in the schedules A and B had been allotted to B.V.Rajagopal Naidu, the father of the vendor herein. The said property is once again allotted to the said B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and accordingly he had also asked to discharge some liability as per the understanding arrived at in the subsequent agreement dated 14.1.1976. All the 6 directors, who were physically alive on the date of the said agreement, had signed the said agreement and accordingly all the directors had given powers to B.V.Rajagopal Naidu to take every step for effecting the liquidation and for completing the same and also to incur expenses in this connection etc. In the counter statement filed by one B.V.Balakrishna Naidu, one of the directors of the company had categorically said that the agreement dated 10.08.1972 is acted upon and the same provides for complete division of all the assets and liabilities of the company. Under Clause 10 of the agreement dated 10.08.1972, the property at Pudukottai more fully described in the schedules A and B are allotted to B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and similarly the facts are also reiterated in the Counter Statement filed by the other director Mr.Mohan Ram Naidu. The said B.V.Rajagopal Naidu died on 21.12.1981 leaving behind his wife Pitchammal, 3 sons and 3 daughters. His wife Pitchammal also has passed away on 18.08.1990. The sisters of V.R.Narasimhalu, G.Rajalakshmi wife of Gajapathy and S.Meenalochini, wife of S.Sudarsanam had executed a release deed in favour of V.R.Narasimhalu on 15.11.1984 duly registered as Document No.79 of 1984 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Coonoor. On 19.11.1984 another daughter of late B.V.Rajagopal Naidu by name K.Malleswari wife of Krishnamoorthy had executed a release deed in favour of V.R.Narasimhalu and the said release deed also had been duly registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Madurai as document No.186 of 1984 and similarly on 10.1.1992 the son of late B.V.Rajagopal Naidu, V.R.Ram Mohan had executed a release deed in favour of the vendor duly registered as document No.35 of 1992 at the office of the Sub Registrar, Madurai. Further on 30.12.1999 another son of late B.V.Rajagopal Naidu V.R.Venkateswaran had executed an unregistered release deed in favour of V.R.Narasimhalu and the same had been attested by a Notary public at Madurai. Thereafter, the sole surviving director of the company under liquidation in C.P.No.71 of 1974 R.Venkatasamy had executed a power of attorney in favour of the vendor dated 27.1.2000 duly registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Madurai as document No.196 of 2000. Hence the vendor is entitled to deal with the said property and accordingly he is also authorised to represent the company now in liquidation.
11. From the close reading of paragraphs - 2 and 4 of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000, it is quite clear that the fourth respondent/25th defendant has executed the same in his individual capacity and further, the definite stand taken by him is that the properties mentioned in the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 have been allotted to his father by name B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and subsequently the other heirs of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu have executed release deeds in his favour and therefore, in his individual capacity he executed the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000. Since the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has been executed by the fourth respondent/25th defendant in his individual capacity and since his definite stand is that all the properties mentioned therein have been allotted to his father viz., B.V.Rajagopal Naidu, the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 is not binding upon the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.
12. It has already been pointed out that for instituting a suit so as to get relief from another person, there must be a cause of action or causes of action. Unless cause of action has arisen against a particular person, he or she cannot be impleaded in a suit. To put it in nutshell, there must be a legal tie so as to implead a person in a legal proceeding. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has become emerged in between the first respondent/ plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant. At the most, the court can come to a conclusion that there is a privity of contract in between the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant.
Further there is no privity of contract in between the first respondent/plaintiff and revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. Since there is no privity of contract between the first respondent/plaintiff and revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, no suit can be instituted against them. Even though there is no privity of contract betwixt the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and first respondent/plaintiff, the revision petitioners/ defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 have been arrayed as parties in Original Suit No.3 of 2010. Since no privity of contract is in existence betwixt the first respondent/plaintiff and revision petitioners/ defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, it is needless to say that the revision petitioners are totally unnecessary parties to Original Suit No.3 of 2010. Since the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are totally unnecessary parties to Original Suit No.3 of 2010, it is needless to say that the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 is liable to be struck off in respect of them.
13. Now the Court has to look into the submissions made by either counsel.
14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has laconically and also ingeniously contended that the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has come into existence in between the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant so as to sell the properties mentioned in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 and the revision petitioners are not at all parties to the same and further, the fourth respondent/25th defendant has not executed the same for himself and on behalf of the revision petitioners. But the first respondent/ plaintiff has chosen to implead the revision petitioners in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 as defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and the Principal District Court, Pudukottai without considering the basic principle of law that there is no privity of contract in between the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and first respondent/plaintiff and also without considering binding nature of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000, has erroneously taken the plaint on file in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. The Principal District Court, Pudukottai has done clear injustice and also miscarriage of justice. Under the said circumstances, the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are entitled to invoke the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to get the relief sought for in the revision petition. Under the said circumstances, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 is liable to be struck off in respect of the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to
37.
15. In order to controvert the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has also equally contended that even though the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has become emerged in between the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant, since the suit properties are originally belonged to the first defendant/first revision petitioner herein viz., M/s.Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Ltd., and since the revision petitioners are also having interest in it, they have been impleaded as parties to Original Suit No.3 of 2010 and further, they have been impleaded as if in a suit for specific performance a subsequent purchaser is liable to be impleaded and if the revision petitioners are having genuine grievance with regard to their inclusion in Original Suit No.3 of 2010, their proper remedy is only to file a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and without invoking the same, the present civil revision petition is not legally maintainable and Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only if there is any miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of natural justice and in the present case no such miscarriage of justice is present. Under the said circumstances, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. Article 227 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.-[(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which its exercises jurisdiction.] (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may-
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
17. From the close reading of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is easily discernible that every High Court is having power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Further it is made clear that the same can be invoked in a case if it is shown that a grave injustice has been done to a party.
18. In the instant case, as elucidated earlier, the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has become emerged in between the first respondent/ plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant so as to sell the suit properties mentioned in Original Suit No.3 of 2010. It has already been pointed out in many places that there is no nexus in between the first respondent/plaintiff and revision petitioners/ defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. Since there is no nexus in between them, in Original Suit No.3 of 2010, the revision petitioners/ defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 should not be arrayed as parties. Therefore, it is very clear that a grave injustice has been done to the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. Under the said circumstances, the present civil revision petition is factually and legally maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has made an inept attempt so as to buttress the contention urged on the side of the first respondent/plaintiff by way of acciting the following decisions:
20. In Durga Prasad and another V. Deep Chand and others (AIR 1954 SC 75), the Honourable Apex Court has held that "a suit for specific performance by prior purchaser against his vendor and subsequent purchaser is legally maintainable."
21. It is an everlasting and also an axiomatic principle of law that subsequent purchaser will step into the shoes of his vendor, who entered into a sale agreement with prior purchaser. Under the said circumstances, subsequent purchaser is also a necessary and proper party to a suit instituted for specific performance.
22. Here the position is inverse. It is not the case of the first respondent/plaintiff that the defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are the subsequent purchases from the fourth respondent /25th defendant. The fourth respondent/25th defendant has entered into the sale agreement in question in his individual capacity and his definite stand is that the properties mentioned therein have been allotted to his father B.V.Rajagopal Naidu and other legal heirs of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu have executed release deeds in favour of the fourth respondent/25th defendant. Therefore, the dictum found in the decision reported earlier is not suitable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
23. In Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 524, the Honourable Apex Court has held that "where a statute provided an appeal on limited grounds, the said grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a writ petition under Articles 226/227."
24. In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675, the Honourable Apex Court has held in paragraph 22 that "Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by clauses (2) and (2) of Article 227 with which we are not concerned hereat. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is administrative as well as judicial, and in capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the way of justice and removing any obstacle 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 certain jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar."
25. In Ganapathy Subramanian Vs. S.Ramalingam and others (2007) 7 MLJ 13, this Court has held that "only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate Courts and Tribunals resulting in grave injustice to a party."
26. In Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabinath and others (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 616, the Honourable Apex Court has held that "Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts within the bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law."
27. In Madras Gymkhana Club, represented by its Hon'y Secretary, The Island Grounds, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002 and others Vs. K.C.Sukumar (2010 (1) CTC 199) "this Court has taken a similar view as taken by the Honourable Apex Court for invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
28. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 has also accentuated the Court to look into the following decisions:
(i) In A.Sreedevi Vs. Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd (2005 (5) CTC 748) this Court has held that "Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and such a plea can be raised in Revision Petition without approaching trial Court."
(ii) In Tamilnadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society rep.by its Managing Director Vs. S.R.Ejaz rep. by its power Agent Muralidhar T.Balani (2009 5 LW 79) this Court has held that "the suit itself is abuse of process of law and filed with the sole intention of defeating the order passed by the Supreme Court and the trial Court having apprised of such facts, failed to act at once, this Court is entitled to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India to axe the suit in the initial stage itself.
29. From the cumulative reading of the decisions referred to supra, it is easily discernible that Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by every High Court under the guise of superintendence, on the following grounds:
(a) to prevent abuse of process of law
(b) to prevent miscarriage of justice
(c) to prevent grave injustice
(d) to establish both administrative as well as judicial power of High Court.
30. In the instant case, even at the risk of jarring repetition the Court would like to point out that the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 has become emerged only in between the first respondent/plaintiff and fourth respondent/25th defendant. No way the revision petitioners /defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are connected with the alleged sale agreement dated 20.09.2000. But inspite lack of of binding nature upon them, they have been unnecessarily dragged on to a judicial proceeding by way of filing Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. Therefore in the present case a manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. To put it in short, a grave injustice has been caused to the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 by way of impleading them in Original Suit No.3 of 2010. Under the said circumstances, the present civil revision petition is legally and also factually maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
31. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has also advanced his residual argument stating that if the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are having genuine grievance to the effect that they have been erroneously impleaded in Original Suit No.3 of 2010, an efficacious relief is available under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 and the same has not been invoked by way of filing a separate petition and therefore, the present civil revision petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the constitution of India.
32. It has already been assorted the circumstances under which Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by a High Court. In the instant case, a grave injustice has been done to the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 by way of impleading them as parties to Original Suit No.3 of 2010, even though there is no nexus betwixt them and the first respondent /plaintiff. Of course it is true that an efficacious relief is available under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But at the same time, since miscarriage of justice as well as injustice have been caused to the revision petitioners /defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37, their approach by way of filing the present civil revision petition to the High Court so as to ventilate their grievance is legally maintainable. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff is sans merit, whereas the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners /defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 is really having subsisting force.
33. Before, parting with this civil revision petition, it has become indefeasible to say something about the conduct of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. The first respondent/plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.3 of 2010 for the reliefs of specific performance and perpetual injunction mainly on the basis of the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 alleged to have been executed by the fourth respondent/25th defendant. Even in the said sale agreement it has been specifically stated that the properties mentioned therein have been allotted to the share of B.V.Rajagopal Naidu who is none other than the father of the fourth respondent/25th defendant. In the sale agreement dated 20.09.2000 the present revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are not at all parties and there is no privity of contract as well as binding nature between the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and first respondent /plaintiff. Therefore the revision petitioners /defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are totally unnecessary parties to Original Suit No.3 of 2010. But the Principal District Court, Pudukottai has taken the plaint on file in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 without knowing the fact that there is no privity of contract between the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 and first respondent/plaintiff. In fact, the Principal District Court, Pudukottai has adopted a spasmodic as well as desultory conduct in numbering Original Suit No.3 of 2010. In every District, Principal District Court is having power of superintendence over its Subordinate courts and the same should be a prototype in administration of justice. But, here the Principal District court, Pudukottai has done a flagrant and also a stupendous mistake in numbering Original Suit No.3 of 2010 against the revision petitioners. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Principal District Court, Pudukottai has adopted complete lethargic attitude for the reasons best known to it. The approach made by the Principal District Court, Pudukottai is not only regrettable but also condemnable.
34. It has already been pointed out that a grave injustice has been done to the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 by way of impleading them in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 and further the Principal District Court, Pudukottai has also done equal and clear injustice to them by way of taking the plaint on file in Original Suit No.3 of 2010. Under the said circumstances, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District court, Pudukottai is liable to be struck off in respect of the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37.
35. In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. The plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai is ordered to be struck off with regard to the revision petitioners /defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37. The Principal District Court, Pudukottai is strictly directed to look into the matter and take necessary action against the staff concerned.
mj To The Principal District Court, Pudukottai