Madras High Court
J.Murugan ... Revision vs Bakiyam on 1 April, 2024
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu
C.R.P. (MD) No. 2569 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
C.R.P. (MD) No. 2569 of 2023
J.Murugan ... Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/
Second Defendant
-vs-
Bakiyam ... Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the Principal Sub
Judge, Kumbakonam dated 27.07.2023 passed in I.A. No. 252 of 2022 in O.S.
No. 111 of 2022 by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. K.S.Duraipandian
For Respondent : Mr. M.S.Jeyakarthik
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated
27.07.2023 in I.A. No. 252 of 2022 in O.S. No. 111 of 2022 on the file of the
Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial
Court' for short).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. An earlier suit in O.S. No. 489 of 2015 has been filed before the
Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam by one Mohan, through his
Power of Attorney Jeyakumar against Bakkiyam, Ilangovan, Annapattu seeking
for permanent injunction in respect of the property in Survey Nos. 21 and 22/1,
Paruthikkudi Revenue Village, Thiruvidaimaruthur, Thajavur District and it has
been subsequently transferred to the District Munsif Court, Thiruvidaimaruthur
and has been renumbered as O.S. No. 471 of 2019, which is pending and it is
informed that recording of evidence has been completed in that suit as on date.
3. The said Bakkiyam has subsequently filed the present suit in O.S.
No. 111 of 2022 before the Trial Court seeking to declare certain documents
produced by the said Mohan in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 479 of 2019 before
the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, as null and void, and the
application filed by one Murugan in I.A. No. 252 of 2022 under Rule 11(d) of
Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
CPC' for short) to reject the plaint in that suit has been dismissed by order dated
27.07.2023, which has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, it is
evident that it has rightly come to the conclusion that a plaint could be rejected
under Rule 11(d) of Order VII of the CPC only when the suit appears from the
statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, and it has not been
demonstrated that the said requirement has been satisfied in this case.
5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to extract the principles on the
exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution as formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in
Shalini Shyam Shetty -vs- Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329], which
reads as follows:-
“(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.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a
writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ
jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from
the history of conferment of the power of superintendence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been
discussed above.
(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, in 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.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise
of their power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid
down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be
guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh -vs- Amarnath (AIR
1954 SC 215) and the principles in Waryam Singh -vs-
Amarnath (AIR 1954 SC 215) have been repeatedly
followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various
other decisions of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh -vs- 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.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court
cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just
because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or
courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words,
the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) The High Court's power of superintendence under Article
227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared
a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar -vs-
Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261] and therefore
abridgment by a constitutional amendment is also very
doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather
cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure
Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999
does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's
power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be
remembered that such statutory amendment does not
correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of
superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on
equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be
exercised suo motu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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.”
Having due regard to the aforesaid legal position, there does not appear to be
any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
6. At the same time, it is evident that the subject-matter of the suit in O.S.
No. 111 of 2022 before the Trial Court and the earlier suit in O.S. No. 479 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2019 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, are so
inextricably connected with each other that the grant of the relief claimed in
one suit has to necessarily result in denial of the relief in the other, meaning
thereby that there may be possibility of conflicting decrees coming into
existence if they are tried separately. In other words, there is substantial identity
of the parties in the two suits viz-a-viz the issues arising for decision, which are
complimentary to each other requiring avoidance of duplication of oral and
documentary evidence for ensuring convenience to the contesting parties, apart
from saving precious judicial time. In such circumstances, it is expedient for
the ends of justice that the two suits have to be heard and tried together in the
same court, and failure in to do so may result in gross injustice to the parties
leading to legal complications.
7. Viewed from that perspective, this Court, in exercise of suo motu powers
conferred by Section 24 of the CPC, transfers the suit in O.S. No. 471 of 2019
from the District Munsif Court, Thiruvidaimaruthur to the file of the Principal
Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, to be consolidated for the purpose of trial along with
the present suit in O.S. No. 111 of 2022 on the file of the same Court. As a
consequence, it has become necessary to issue the following directions to the
Trial Court:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) the evidence already recorded in O.S. No. 471 of 2019 before the District
Munsif Court, Thiruvidaimaruthur shall be adopted as evidence in the
suit in O.S. No. 111 of 2022 also;
(ii) the documents produced by the parties along with the respective
pleadings in O.S. No. 111 of 2022 shall be marked as exhibits, if they are
otherwise admissible in evidence, through witnesses, who may be
examined for proving the same in accordance with law;
(iii) it would be incumbent upon the Trial Court to permit all parties to
examine their respective witnesses, in addition to re-calling of witnesses
already examined by the parties before the District Munsif Court,
Thiruvidamaruthur for further examination-in-chief and cross-
examination, if required;
(iv) after completing the trial of the suits following the prescribed procedure,
the Trial Court shall afford full opportunity to all parties for making their
respective submissions and pass a reasoned judgment in both suits on
merits and in accordance with law;
(v) it shall be ensured that there is atleast one effective hearing every week
showing progress of the cases; and
(vi) the Trial Court shall send quarterly reports of compliance to the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court till both cases are finally disposed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed on the aforesaid
terms. No costs.
01.04.2024
pal/PKN
Index : Yes
Note: Issue order copy by 12.04.2024.
To
1. The Principal Sub-Court,
Kumbakonam.
2. The District Munsif Court,
Thiruvidaimaruthur.
Copy to
1. The Registrar (Judicial),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
2. J.Murugan,
S/o. Jeyakumar,
Vepathur North Agaraharam,
Thiruvitaimaruthur Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
3. Bakiyam,
D/o. Arokiyam,
Mela Theru,
Ammanpettai Village,
Thiruvitaimaruthur Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
PKN
01.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
