The Bar Council Of Tamilnadu And ... vs V.K.Sethukumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 22878 Mad

                                                                               C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021
                                                                               and CMP.No.16145 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                 DATED: 23.11.2021
                                                       CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                             C.R.P(PD)No. 2125 of 2021
                                                       and
                                               CMP.No.16145 of 2021

                     The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry,
                     Rep. By its Secretary, High Court Building,
                     Chennai – 600 104.                                                  ..Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                     1.V.K.Sethukumar
                     2.D.Selvam
                     3.K.Rangathan
                     4.E.T.Rajendran @ E.T.Rasentheran
                     5.K.Rajarajan
                     6.N.Sampath
                     7.T.Mahesh Kumr Bhandari                                         ..Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                     India, seeking to strike off the OS.No.5174 of 2020 on the file of the V-
                     Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai as not maintainable.
                                         For Petitioner         : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar
                                         For Respondents        : Mr.T.Mohan for
                                                                  Mr.L.Margret and Mr.K.Sukumar



                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021
                                                                                and CMP.No.16145 of 2021



                                                        ORDER

The challenge in this revision is to the entertaining of a suit in

OS.No.5174 of 2020 by the Bar Council Tamilnadu and Puducherry.

2.The said suit has been initiated by the 1st respondent herein

seeking damages of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Chairman and

Members of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry for having taken

disciplinary action and imposing punishment of reprimand on him. It is also

seen that the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of

Tamilnadu and Puducherry was set aside by the Disciplinary Committee of

the Bar Council of India on 29.11.2014.

3.Contending that the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee

of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry reprimanding him, caused

loss of reputation & damages to him, the 1st respondent launched the above

suit. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry is before me invoking

the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

seeking rejection of the plaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021

4.I have heard Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing

for the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry.

5.Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar would submit that Section 48 of the

Advocates' Act, 1961 bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits regarding

action taken under the said Act. He would further contend that the Doctrine

of Merger would also apply because the order of the Bar Council of

Tamilnadu and Puducherry was reversed by the Disciplinary Committee of

the Bar Council of India relying upon S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh reported in 1989 (4) SCC 582. I do not think, I can entertain the

revision filed under Article 227, when a specific remedy under Order VII

Rule 11 of C.P.C is available. Order VII Rule 11(d) empowers a Civil Court

to reject the plaint, if it finds that a suit is barred under any law. It is open to

the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry to petition the District Court,

seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 citing the same bar

that is now invoked before me.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021

6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu

Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Others Vs. Tuticorin

Educational Society & Others reported in 2019 (9) SCC 538 has held that

the High Court will not, as a matter of discipline and prudence, exercise the

power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

when a remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure before the

appropriate Civil Court forum.

7.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the said judgment, I do not think, this revision could be entertained. This

civil revision petition is therefore, dismissed. Reserving the right of the

petitioner to raise all issues before the Trial Court. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.11.2021

kkn

Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021

To:-

1.The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, Rep. By its Secretary, High Court Building, Chennai – 600 104.

2.The V-Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KKN

C.R.P(PD)No. 2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021

23.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis