High Court has jurisdiction to exercise its power in rectifying the mistake.

Both the revisions petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after obtaining the leave of this Court by the revision petitioners, since they are not parties to the suit in O.S.No.264 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.

2. This order shall dispose of the above two C.R.Ps.

3. The first respondent in both the C.R.Ps. had filed a suit before the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi in O.S.No.264/2003, against respondents 2 to 4 in this revision, (who are given up later), impleading them as defendants, for injunction restraining them in any way issuing 'No Objection' certificate, to any Wind Farm Developers or their agents concerning the property of the plaintiff situated at Rameswaram. Along with the said suit, he had filed I.A.No.1042/2003 for ad interim injunction also.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi ordered notice to the respondents on 13.8.2003, fixing the hearing date as 2.9.2003. On 2.9.2003, the notices were not returned and therefore, the case was adjourned to 15.9.2003. On that date, the Court received the postal acknowledgment from the defendants viz., respondents 2 to 4 in this revision, as if the notices were served by post. Despite the fact, the defendants in the suit have received the notices, they failed to appear before the Court, which resulted an ex-parte order, thereby allowing the application on 15.9.2003, under which virtually the defendants are restrained in any way issuing 'No Objection' certificate, to any of the wind farm developers, with the regard to the suit property.

5. The revision petitioners, against whom an exparte order of injunction has been obtained, without impleading them as parties, aggrieved by the same, after obtaining the leave of this Court, filed these two revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging that there was abuse of court process and the trial Court has committed a blunder, in taking the case on file ,without jurisdiction and an order passed without jurisdiction, should not be allowed to stand, which requires erasion by this Court, on the strength of superintendence power.

6. The second petitioner in both the revisions claims to be a reputed multi national company, engaged in the business of manufacturing, erecting and commissioning wind turbine generators on turn-key basis, for its customers, in the field of non conventional energy sources. On identification of suitable lands, for installing wind electrical generators, the owners of the lands used to enter into an agreement with them, for the erection of wind turbine generators. In this way, it seems the first petitioners in both the revisions, claiming to be the owners of certain lands, which are the subject matter of O.S.No.264/2003, approached the second revision petitioner and entered into a contract, for installation of certain number of wind electric generators at Rameswaram. Because of the injunction obtained by the first respondent/plaintiff, without impleading the persons, who claim interest in the suit property and the persons who are entitled to receive the 'No Objection' certificate from the defendants, they have filed these two revision petitions, for the purpose of setting aside the order of the trial Court, since there was an abuse of process of court, that too at the instance of the plaintiff/the first respondent approaching the court, which had no jurisdiction.

7. Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. A.L. Somayaji for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan.

8. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, appearing for the revision petitioners submits that

(i) the trial Court grossly committed an error in taking the case on file, without jurisdiction even as per the averments in the plaint, and

(ii) the trial Court had granted injunction or allowed the application, without taking into consideration the fact that the affected parties are not before the Court and aided the first respondent/pl