Madras High Court
Vinoth vs Mohandoss on 11 October, 2022
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
Vinoth ... Petitioner
Vs.
Mohandoss ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the preliminary judgment and decreetal
order dated 19.01.2022 in O.S.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Thiruvarur and allow the CRP as prayed for.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Boopathy
for Ms.D.Bharathy
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the Court below dismissing the suit for
partition in O.S.No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Thiruvallur. However, the revision papers were returned by the Registry,
pointing out that the revision against a decree is not maintainable, in
view of the availability of the appeal remedy.
2. The petitioner herein re-presented the papers with an
endorsement that the Lower Court Judge exceeded his jurisdiction and
the judgment and decree is based on exparte proceedings and since the
High Court have Supervisory Jurisdiction, the Civil Revision Petition
filed under Article 227 is maintainable. Since the Registry has
entertained a doubt, the matter is posted for deciding the maintainability
before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the
judgment and decree dated 19.01.2022 dismissing the suit for partition
in O.S.No.13 of 2017 filed by the respondent.
4. A perusal of the judgment passed by the Court below
would suggest the petitioner herein examined himself as PW1 and
marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 on his side and after considering the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, the Court below came to the
conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish his legal rights for
partition and consequently, dismissed the suit on merits.
5. Against the judgment and decree dismissing the suit only
an appeal will lie under Section 96 of CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai versus
Tuticorin Educational Society reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538, had
categorically held that, when an effective remedy is available for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
revision petitioner under C.P.C., there is a near total bar for exercising
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution
of India.
6. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
civil revision filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and
decree passed in the original suit, is not maintainable before this Court.
Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is rejected in SR stage. No
costs.
11.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dna
Note: The Registry is directed to
return the certified copies of
judgment and decree in O.S.No.13 of 2017
filed by the revision petitioner to the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
To
The Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
S.SOUNTHAR , J.
dna
CRP.SR.No.98918 of 2022
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
