A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a civil revision petition without going into the merits of the case.
Following the Apex Court reasoning, the judge reiterated that as long as a remedy of appeal is present under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) itself, High Court cannot entertain revision petitions under Article 227 as a matter of discipline and prudence.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was the fourth defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent. The first respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction. On receipt of the suit summons, the defendants filed written statement with counter claim under Order 8 Rule 1 & 6(A) of CPC with prayer of declaring that the removal of the defendants from the Board of Trust of Kalaimagal Educational Trust, Belukurichi, Namakkal Taluk is unlawful and void, non-est and a nullity with consequential prayer of permanent injunction. Thereafter, the first respondent filed written statement to the counter claim and filed application to reject the counter claim on the ground that the trial court has no pecuniary jurisdiction since the counter claim was valued at Rs.8,000/- and paid court fees. The first respondent filed suit before the Sub Court and it has jurisdiction from Rs.1,00,001/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. It has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit from the value of the property at Rs.1,00,001/- to Rs.10,00,000/- Whereas from Rs.1/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, only District Munsif Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the counterclaim was rejected and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition was filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given the opportunity before the trial court in order to put forth his submission and the trial court passed the order on the application filed by the first respondent herein.
Observations of the Court:
The court acknowledged that as per Order 8 Rule 6A (4) of CPC, whenever there is a counterclaim i.e., the plaint was rejected by the trial court, then the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal. In place of that, the petitioner cannot invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the rejection of the plaint. As per Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, the appeal shall lie from the orders passed under Rule 10 of Order 7 of CPC returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court. Therefore, the appeal only lies as against the order passed by the court and the civil revision petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others (2019) 9 SCC 538, the court expounded that it is clear that wherever the proceedings are under the code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court did not entertain the revision under Article 227 in light of the specific remedy of appeal provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.
The decision of the Court:
The civil revision petition was dismissed as held to be not maintainable.
Case Title: B.K. Murugesan vs Kalaimagal Kalvi Arakattalai and others
Coram: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Case No.: CRP. No. 1539 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: M/s. V. Srimathi
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz (For R1)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
