JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This Original Petition (Civil) has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 judgment dated 27.9.2011 in O.S. No. 511/2021 on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur.

2. Heard both sides.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P3, impugned order, found that the Munsiff Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised in the above Suit.

4. Refuting this contention, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that this Original Petition is not maintainable since an order returning the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 is an appealable order as provided under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted further that availability of appellate remedy can be near to total bar for exercising supervisory jurisdiction. In this connection the learned counsel for the respondents placed decision reported in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others, 2019 (9) SCC 538 : 2019 KHC 7006.

5. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction available to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to address patent illegality. The learned counsel placed decision of this Court reported in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. vs. M.V. Mathew and Another, 2011 KHC 2935 : 2011 (4) KLT (SN) 35. Therefore, the vital question to be decided in this case is as to whether availability of appellate remedy can be treated as near to total bar for exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

6. I have perused the decision in Virudhunagar's case (supra), wherein in Para-11, 12 and 13, the Honourable Apex Court discussed the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court observed in Para-13 and 14 as under:

“13. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before Civil Courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil procedure and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a 3member Bench of this court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (6) SCC 675 pointed out in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath, 2015 (5) SCC 423 that orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts.

14. Therefore 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 ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.”

Thus it has to be held that though in the earlier decisions the Apex Court as well as this Court upheld the view that supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised, in law an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to t