The revision petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.161 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The suit was filed for declaration and for perpetual injunction. The learned judge framed the point for consideration as hereunder.

“Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.”

Ultimately, the learned judge returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Code’ for the purpose of convenience) with a direction to file the plaint before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court having jurisdiction and the intimation of the return of the plaint to be informed to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were directed to file an application before the court to specify the Court in which the plaintiffs propose to present the plaint after its return.

2. Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987, would apply only to the properties pertaining to the said institutions or endowed to them, but the said Act is not applicable to the private patta lands. The learned counsel in all fairness would submit that though a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code has to be filed, that would not come in the way of this court in exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in MALLIKARJUNA SRINIVASA GUPTA V. K.SHESHIREKHAA(1); KORIPALLI RAM KRISHNA RAO V. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND OTHERS(2) and SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI AND OTHERS(3).

3. Heard the counsel.

4. The facts in brief already had been narrated supra. In Mallikarjuna Srinivasa Gupta v. K.Sheshirekha (1 supra) the learned judge of this court while dealing with supervisory jurisdiction and scope thereof observed that the power of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution is wider than one conferred on High Court by Article 226 and the power of superintendence of High court is not subject to technicalities of procedural or traditional fetters, which may be found in Certiorari jurisdiction. In Koripalli Ram Krishna Rao v. State Bank of Hyderabad and others (2 supra) the learned judge of this court while dealing with supervisory jurisdiction of High court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India observed that if the High Court finds . that lower court failed to exercise jurisdiction at appropriate and relevant time, it is always open for High Court to interfere and pass necessary orders in the interest of justice. The Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (3 supra) while dealing with Section 115 of the Code (as amended by Act 46 of 1999) held that amendment does not curtail either the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But the exercise of such power being discretionary, the same would be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge and High Court cannot summarily refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground that no writ can be issued against private parties.

5. The settled principles of law in relation to the exercise of the power or jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India need not be repeated at length. It is also needless to say that this court on several occasions held that when a specific remedy by way of appeal is provided for under the Code, it would be always just and proper to exhaust the said remedy before approaching this

court.

6. Order XLIII Rule 1 deals with appeals from orders of the Code and under Order XLIII (1)(a) specifies as

hereunder.

“An order under rule 10 of order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court (except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of order VII has been

followed)”.

S