Under challenge is Ext.P3 order whereby the court below directed that the plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Original Petition are as follows.
The petitioner was conducting the business of drying and sale of tendon of cattle to which objection was taken by the Panchayath and it appears that the Panchayath had taken certain steps. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal concerned and obtained interim order against the Panchayath. Further grievance is that the Panchayath locked the gates of the plaint schedule property and the defendants 2 to 4 seized the processed goods stored in the property and buried the same. The said act had caused considerable damages to the petitioner and therefore suit was laid for mandatory injunction as well as for realisation of compensation. The respondents entered appearance and filed written statement. In the written statement filed by the respondents 2 to 5, it was contended that the suit is barred under Section 250 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and the petitioner ought to have issued notice under Section 249 of the said Act. The court below, after elaborately hearing the parties, passed an order dated 09.10.2014 rejecting the plaint as the suit found to be hit by Section 250 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even though remedy by way of appeal is available, in view of the patent illegality committed in the order passed by the court below, this Court would be perfectly justified in interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and granting relief to the petitioner. It was also contended that it is a premature dismissal of the suit as parties were not put on notice and evidence had not been adduced. The court below simply heard the matter and passed the impugned order. It is therefore contended that this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set right the illegality committed by the court below.
4. Whether the direction of the court below rejecting plaint is justified or not justified is not a matter to be gone into in this proceedings. The court below has chosen to apply Section 250 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and found that the plaint is to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Going by the definition of decree in the Code of Civil Procedure, decree includes rejection of plaint also. That means the order assailed in this Original Petition is appealable and when there is substantive remedy by way of appeal, it is trite that alternate remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be exercised by this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in view of the patent illegality committed by the court below and in view of the burden casts on the petitioner, this Court may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
6. When a remedy of appeal is available, this Court will not be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the said jurisdiction can be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and there is no such exceptional circumstances made out in the petition.
This Original Petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty of the petitioner to avail of such remedies as are available to him under law.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp