Madras High Court
T.K.Chithran vs C. Samsari @ Chithran on 23 March, 2015
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.3.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P.PD (MD) Nos.686 of 2014 and 687 of 2014 T.K.Chithran ... Petitioner in C.R.P (MD) No.686 of 2014 a n d T.K.Chithran Ambalam ... Petitioner in C.R.P (MD)No.687 of 2014 Vs 1. C. Samsari @ Chithran 2. Periakathi 3. Alagu Pillai 4. Sakkarai Ammal 5. Ariyamalai. ... Respondents in both the petitions. Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the proceedings in O.S.Nos.71 and 118 of 2012 against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham. !For petitioners ... Mr.V.Maragathavel ^For respondents ... Ms.V.Jeyarani for R.1. Ms.M.Krishnaveni for R.2. No appearance for R.R.3 to 5. :COMMON ORDER
There are two revisions. The first defendant in O.S.Nos.71 and 118 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Natham are the revision petitioners herein.
2. These Civil Revisions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to strike off the suits in O.S.Nos.71 and 118 of 2012.
Case NO.
Relief Result Description of Property Parties O S No. 285/2000 District Munsif Court, Dindigul Permanent injunction Decreed on 27/02/2001 S.Nos.303, 304/1, 307/1, 311/2, 314/4 B, 314/5, 316/6 and 315/5 Vadipatti Taluk T.K.Chitran Ambalam Vs. C.Samsari @ Chithran O S No.551/2001 District Munsif Dindigul Recovery of Possession and for damages Decreed on 09/01/2004 Item No.1 -
Door No.2/106Item No.2 - 105/A Vadipatti Taluk T.K.Chitran Ambalam Vs. Samsari @ Chithran and 5 others EP No. 8/2006 For recovery of possession Delivery effected and E.P terminated on 20/3/2012 O S 85/2006 District Munsif Nattam Declaration that the decree in O.S.No.551/2001 and E.P.8 of 2006 are null and void Dismissed on 27/06/2012 Suit schedule property Samsari @ Chithiran Vs. T.K.Chithran Ambalam O S 71/2012 District Munsif, Natham To declare the plaintiff as joint owner and permanent injunction.
S.No.303/2A1 ? 0.09.0 2/162A - house 2/162/B } 2/163/B }shops C.Samsari @ Chitran Vs.1. T.K.Chithiran and four others O S 118/2012 Suit for partition of 1/6th share (1). S.No.303/2 A1 - 0.38 cents (2). S.No.303/3A2 ? 0.18.0 (3).S.No. 307/1C3 ? 0.39.5 (4). S.No.307/1/C7 ? 0.04.5 (5).S.No. 307/1 C10 ? 0.02.0 (6). S.No.311/2B ? 0.28.0 (7). S.No.313/5B ? 0.16.0 (8). S.No.313/6A 1 ? 0.11.0 (9). S.No.313/6 A7 ? 0.88.5 (10). S.No.314/4 B2 ? 0.71.5 (11). S.No.314/5 D ? 0.25.5 (12). S.No.304/1 B ? 0.50.0 (13). S.No.314/43 B ? 0.17 (14). S.No.314/4B4 ? 0.16 (15). S.No.620/15 ? 0.01.08 C.Samsari @ Chithran Vs.
1. T.K.Chithiran Ambalam and four others.
3. From the above column, it is evident that O.S.No.285 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.687 of 2014 against the first respondent herein for permanent injunction and the suit was decreed. Again, O.S.No.551 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.687 of 2014 for relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession which was also decreed.
4. In the E.P proceedings in E.P.No.8 of 2006, the petitioner in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.687 of 2014 had taken possession of the property in O.S.No.551 of 2001. Admittedly, there are no appeals are filed against the said decrees. An application filed by the first respondent herein under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed on 13/6/2015. A claim petition in E.A.No.24 of 2009 was also dismissed.
5. In all the above said proceedings, the claim of the first respondent that he is the owner of the property was negatived and the title of the petitioners herein were confirmed. While so, O.S.No.85 of 2006 was filed by the first respondent herein to declare that the decree in O.S.No.551 of 2001 was null and void. Even the said suit was dismissed on 27/6/2012.
6. While so, O.S.Nos.71 of 1992 and 118 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Natham have been filed by the first respondent herein for a declaration that the first respondent is the joint owner and for partition of 1/6th share.
7. The present revisions are filed by the revision petitioner who is the first defendant in the above suits for striking off the said suits from the file of the District Munsif, Natham.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.
9. According to the petitioner, with regard to the suit property in the above said suits, already finality has been arrived at in the earlier suits. There were no appeals preferred by the first respondent against the said decrees. The separate suit filed by him seeking to declare the earlier decree was also dismissed. In such circumstances, the above suits have been filed against the same parties and the same properties which was a clear abuse of process of law.
10. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the above suits are frivolous and vexatious and they are filed with a deliberate intention to delay and defeat the rights of the revision petitioners which were lawfully obtained in the earlier two suits. It was contended further that the said suits are also barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. If the plaintiff is aggrieved by the fact that already the finality has been arrived at between the parties in the earlier proceedings, which was allowed to become final by the respondents, then there would be no cause of action for the respondent/plaintiff in the suit. If that is so, it is open to the first defendant to seek for rejection of the plaint in the manner known to law as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead when an alternate remedy is available without availing the same, the petitioner has rushed to this Court to strike off the suits cannot be entertained.
12. The above revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL reported in {2010 (8) SCC ? 329}, the powers of Article 227 have been elaborately analysed in paragraph 49 and the same is extracted as follows:-
?49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:
(a). A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High court under these two articles is also different.
....
(c). High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
...
(e). According to the ratio in Waryam Singh V. Amarnath (AIR 1954 SC ?
215), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it ?within the bounds of their authority?.
(f), In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g). Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
....
(k). The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l). On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
(m). The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to the High Court.
...
(o). An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.?
13. From the above decision, it is clear that power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, where judicial conscience of this Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice would occasion. This Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into an appellate Court and appreciate or evaluate the facts by itself and draw inference. In my considered view, the remedy open to the petitioner is to move the same Court where the suits are filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make out the applicability of the ingredients of the said Rule. Without doing so, the petitioners cannot be permitted to rush to this Court.
14. In the result, this Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham in O.S.Nos.71 and 118 of 2012 against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 5. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
23/3/2015 mvs.
Index: yes/no website: yes/No To
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J mvs.
Common Order made in C.R.P.PD (MD) Nos.686 and 687 of 2014 23/3/2015