( 1 ) EVEN when it is brought to the notice of the High Court that the trial court has entertained a suit which is beyond the scope of its pecuniary jurisdiction and in which an order has been passed in contravention of the accepted rules of procedure and which amounts to abuse of process of court should the High Court nor exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Consituation of India without directing the party to avail of all alternative remedy provided by way of appeal from order and/or revision ? The aforesaid question arises in the backdrop of the facts that follow.

( 2 ) THE respondent-original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 101 of 1985 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) Gandhidham-Kutch inter alia praying that the action of the petitioner-defendant Kandla Port Trust in discharging the tender (in respect of the sale of vessel M. V. OBA) which was opened on 30/04/1984 and inviting another tender by Public Notice dated 25/02/1985 be declared illegal and void and it be further declared that there was completed contract of sale of the vessel `m. V. OBA lying in the waters of the Kandla Port. The respondent-plaintiff also prayed that the defendant be restrained from transferring selling or disposing of the vessel in question and be directed to complete the formalities of handing over the ship/vessel to the plaintiff.

( 3 ) ON 8/02/1985 the defendant filed Caveat Application which was received by the opponent-plaintiff and also submitted in Court. The aforesaid suit was filed on 26/03/1985 and on the same day the plaintiff filed an application exhibits and prayed for interim relief. Although there was a caveat application without issuing notice and without hearing there petitionerdefendant the trial Court granted ad-interim relief and later on by its order dated 12/04/1985 confirmed the ad-interim relief granted earlier. By this order the trial court restrained the defendant from selling transferring and/or disposing of the vessel-ship M. V. OBA.

( 4 ) THE petitioner-original defendant has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the trial court.

( 5 ) THE ship M. V. OBA was lying in the waters of Kandla Port for quite some time. The crew and other persons incharge of the vessel left the same unattended. A huge amount of Port dues was payable by the owner of the ship. Nobody cared to pay the same. Therefore under the provisions of sec. 64 of the Major Port Trust Act the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kandla (herein after referred to as the Board) seized the vehicle Some time in the year 1984. The vehicle was placed for public auction by inviting the tenders It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that he had filled in the tender he had quoted the ice of Rs. 11. 00 lacs he had paid Rs. 3. 00 lacs as and by way deposit and his tender was accepted. Thereafter some time in the month of September 1984 the authorities of the Board communicated to the respondent-plaintiff that due to legal impediments it was not possible of hand over the ship free from encumbrances and therefore the tender was discharged. The respondent-plaintiff disputed the say of the Board and contended that in was not open for the Board to discharge the tender. Ultimately the Board issued a fresh public notice on 25/02/1985 inviting fresh tenders. The last date for filling in the tenders was 2/04/1985 Before the aforesaid date the respondent-plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division on 26/03/1985 and also submitted an application Exh. 5 for interim orders. It may be repeated that before the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit the petitioner-Board had filed caveat on 8/02/1985 and had also served a upon of the same on the respondent plaintiff. Still however the plaintiff did not give notice of the application for interim relief and moved the Court. The Court also did not insist that the notice be served upon the