This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.799 of 2016 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai.
2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.799 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai. The respondent filed the suit for declaration to declare that the Office Bearers elected in the Election held on 25.09.2016 for the period 2016 ? 2019 is valid and binding on the petitioners/defendants and their men or agents and also for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants and their men and agent from in any way interfering into the Management and affairs of the respondent's/plaintiff's Society. According to the respondent, as per Bye-laws, the election to Office Bearers should be held once in three years. The petitioners were elected for the period 2012 ? 2015 and their term ended on 09.06.2015. One Venkatesan colluding with the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.155 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and also filed I.A.No.176 of 2015 for appointment of Election Officer to conduct Election for Office Bearers for the period 2015 ? 2018. One K.P.Kandasamy, Member of the respondent Society requested the petitioners 1 and 2 / the then President and Secretary to conduct Election for the Office Bearers for the period 2015 ? 2018. The petitioners 1 and 2 replied that only after delivery of judgment in O.S.No.155 of 2015, they will conduct the Election. The said K.P.Kandasamy and others wrote a letter to the District Registrar (South) Society, Madurai, to conduct Election. The said K.P.Kandasamy and 597 members wrote a letter to the petitioners that General Body Meeting will be convened as per Bye-laws and Election Officer would be appointed. The petitioners conducted the General Body Meeting on 24.07.2016. After the letters written by K.P.Kandasamy and others to the District Registrar (South) Society, the Inspector General of Registration directed the District Registrar (South) Society, Madurai, to take necessary action as per the Rules of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules. After Paper Publication dated 06.08.2016, the General Body Meeting was convened on 28.08.2016 by the claimants and passed a Resolution appointing Mr.P.Vijayaragavan as Election Officer. The said Election Officer issued Paper Publication, dated 31.08.2016 and conducted Election on 25.09.2016 and the respondent - P.Seenivasan was elected as President. The petitioners intervened with the functioning of the Office Bearers and the respondent and therefore, the respondent has filed O.S.No.799 of 2016 for the relief stated supra.
3. The petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.799 of 2016, pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai.
4. Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the suit in O.S.No.799 of 2016 is arising without proper cause of action and therefore, it is illegal and not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge without considering the objection raised by the fourth petitioner, issued notice in the suit by taking it on file. Further, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge failed to consider the fact that the respondent has made vague averments with regard to Election of Office Bearers without mentioning earlier Election of Office Bearers to the Society. When the fourth petitioner appeared before the Court and informed about the pending cases and the disposal of earlier cases by the Courts with regard to Election, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge ordered notice without passing any interim order in the I.A. Subsequently, on verification, the petitioners came to know that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge ordered status quo behind the back of the petitioners. Even though the order of status quo is in favour of the petitioners and the respondent's supporters tried to trespass into the School at 04.30 p.m. on 23.12.2016 and after the intervention of the Police authorities, they left the School. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that there is no cause of action for the suit in O.S.No.799 of 2016, for the relief sought for.
5. Mr.VR.Shanmuganthan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners cannot directly approached this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary power and the same can be exercised sparingly and order under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a judicial order passed by the Court. In the present case, the respondent has elaborately mentioned the sequence of events, which led to Election of new Office Bearers on 25.09.2016 after following all the procedures contemplated by Bye-laws and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules. He also submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the averments made in the plaint are vague and does not disclose any cause of action, is baseless.
6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following judgments:
(i) 2006 (5) CTC 848 [J.Lili Jabakani Vs. Chandrasekhar], wherein at paragraph 16, it has been held as follows:
?16. The scope and amplitude of
Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been considered by a catena of decisions of the apex Court and the apex Court has held that Supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, vide SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI (2003) 6 SCC
675.
Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals to the High Court, but no corresponding right is conferred upon the litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under
Article 227 as a matter of right. In fact, power under this Article casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior Courts and tribunals within the limits of its authority and that they do not cross the limit ensuring the performance of their duties in accordance with law conferring power within the ambit of the enactment treating such Court and Tribunals, vide OUSEPTH MATHAI VS. ABDUL KHADIR reported in 2002 (1) SCC 319. The power under
Article 227 of the Constitution has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when the supervisory jurisdiction is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as if not corrected at that every moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. The High court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character, vide Yeshwant Sakhalkar vs. Hirabat Kamat Mhamai (2004) 6 SCC 71.?
(ii) 2013 (2) CTC 756 [Amaravathy Cranes Vs. Rajendra Raja], wherein at paragraph 14, it has been held as follows:
?14. But, this court is not inclined to entertain the revision petitions for more than one reason. In this case, the revision petitioner has remedy by way of filing of an application before the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejecting the plaints. It is only when such an application is filed, the trial Munsif will be in a position to decide whether the plaints should be rejected at the threshold without trial. In the event of the rejection of the plaint, the aggrieved party has right to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The power under
Article 227 of the Constitution is extraordinary and it is supervisory jurisdiction. By the exercise of the supervisory power of jurisdiction, this court cannot convert itself into the court of appeal as held by the Supreme Court in Abdul Razak v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle reported in 2010 (1) CTC 466 (SC) : (2010) 2 SCC 432 and in paragraph 23, it was observed as follows : "23. If the petition filed by Respondents 1 and 2 was under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, then the learned Single Judge should have taken note of the often quoted judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai 2003 (6) SCC 675, in which a Two-Judge Bench, after threadbare analysis of Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution and considering a large number of judicial precedents on the subject, recorded the following conclusions: (SCC pp. 694-96, para 38) ?(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. .............
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character."
(Emphasis added)?
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
8. The petitioners have come out with the present petition for striking out the plaint under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the plaint averments are vague and does not disclose any cause of action.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaint discloses cause of action for the relief sought for in the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the Court can exercise it's power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India sparingly and only in extraordinary cases. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent has considerable force. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.
10. By considering the averments made in the plaint and averment with regard to cause of action, I hold that the petitioners have not made out any case for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is directed to dispose of O.S.No.799 of 2016, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than 30.06.2017.
To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
.