SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26055 of 2018)
Decided on : 03-10-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLIII Rule 1(r) – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Remedy against order of injunction – Wherever proceedings are under CPC and forum is Civil Court, availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter 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 Constitution – High Court ought not to have entertained revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under CPC itself – Order of High Court as well as elections purportedly held pursuant to order of High Court set aside. (Paras 14 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Aggrieved by an order of High Court passed under Article 227 of Constitution, vacating an
interim order of injunction granted by trial Court, plaintiffs have come up with this appeal. Despite objections to the maintainability of revision on the ground of availability of an appellate remedy under the Code, High Court allowed Civil Revision Petition and set aside order of injunction granted by trial Court.
Findings of Court:
Only way to bring to an end all the litigations between parties before various Fora is to set aside impugned order and the elections held pursuant thereto and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to convene General Body as well as Executive Committee for election of office bearers.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by an order of the High Court passed under Article 227 of the Constitution, vacating an interim order of injunction granted by the trial Court, the plaintiffs have come up with this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
4. The appellants herein filed a suit O. S. No. 145 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Munsif, at Thoothukudi praying (i) for a declaration that the notice issued by the sixth defendant (second respondent in this appeal) convening the General Body Meeting of the first respondent–Society at 5 P.M. and the Executive Committee meeting at 5:30 P.M. on the same day namely 05.05.2018 was illegal; (ii) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 from convening the meetings of the General Body and the Executive Committee of the first respondent–society; (iii) for a declaration that the appointment of the fifth defendant (third respondent in this appeal) as patron for life of the first defendant-Society was unlawful; (iv) for a permanent injunction restraining the sixth defendant (second respondent in the appeal) from acting as the Secretary of the first defendant-Society and (v) for the appointment of a Commissioner to receive the list of members and to conduct free and fair election of office bearers of the first defendant-Society.
5. Along with the suit, the appellants/plaintiffs moved an Interlocutory Application i.e. I. A. No. 386 of 2018 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from convening the meetings of the general Body and the Executive Committee on 5.5.2018. It appears that the appellants/plaintiffs also moved one more Interlocutory Application i.e. Interlocutory Application No.387 of 2018 seeking an injunction restraining the defendant nos. 5 & 6 from acting respectively as Patron and the Secretary.
6. It appears that the suit was filed on 23.04.2018 and the application for interim injunction was moved on 24.04.2018. The Contesting defendants filed a counter affidavit on the very next day namely 25.04.2018 along with 19 documents.
7. Therefore, after hearing both sides, the trial Court passed an order on 26.04.2018 allowing Interlocutory Application No.386 of 2018 and injuncting the defendants from proceeding with the Meeting of the General Body and the Executive Committee as scheduled on 5.5.2018. It is relevant to note that the trial Court not only took note of the pleadings on both sides but also took note of 12 documents filed by the plaintiffs and 19 documents filed along with the counter affidavits of the defendants.
8. As against the order of the trial court granting injunction, the fifth defendant in the suit (the third respondent in this appeal) who was claiming to be the Patron for life, filed a Regular Appeal in C.M.A No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court at Thothukudi under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein who were the defendant Nos.1 & 6 respectively, instead of filing a Regular Appeal, filed a Civil Revision in C.R.P.(MD) (PD) No.1084 of 2018 on the file of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Despite objections to the maintainability of the revision on the ground of availability of an appellate remedy under the Code, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. It is against the said order that the plaintiffs have come up with the above appeal.
10. The objection to the maintainability of the revision was sought to be overcome by the High Court on the basis of a few decisions which revolved around the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to keep the subordinate
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.