The High Court's power of judicial revision under Article 227 is limited and cannot be invoked to correct errors of fact or law made by a subordinate Court or tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction.

Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in I.A. No. 480 of 1996 who are defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 158 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, are the petitioners in the above revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court below at the instance of the plaintiff, 1st respondent herein has granted injunction restraining the petitioners herein from taking part in any meeting including the meeting of the Board of Directors pending disposal of the suit. The present revision was filed on 5-9-96. On the very same day the Registry, after processing the papers since there is provision for appeal against the order in I.A. No. 480 of 96 raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter has been listed for hearing on 6-9-96 even without numbering the revision.

2. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset submits that in view of extra-ordinary urgency, namely, the meeting of the Board of Directors is being held on 6th and 7th of September, 1996 and in view of the absence of appellate fudge till 8-9-96, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For filing the revision before this Court and by passing the appeal provision the learned senior counsel has raised the following submissions:-

(1) Even though there is effective appeal remedy, in view of urgency and of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, this Court has ample power to entertain revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the above said proposition, he relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Abanindra Kumar v. A. K. Biswas, 1954 AIR(Cal) 355.

(ii) Walaiti Ram v. Siri Krishan, 1976 AIR(Delhi) 50.

(iii) Bhagirath Singh v. State of Punjab, 1965 AIR(Punj) 170.

(iv) Vasudeo Ganu v. Returning Officer, 1968 AIR(Born) 259.

(2) Even on merits because of the following irregularities, the petitioners are entitled to straightway approach this Court without resorting to filing appeal before the appellate Court.

(i) The plaintiff, who is only a shareholder, has filed the present suit without impleading the Bank, namely, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited. Hence, in the absence of Bank as a party to the suit, the suit as laid is not maintainable.

(ii) The plaintiff has not explained how he has aggrieved or prejudiced with regard to the continuance of defendants 1 to 4 as Directors of the said Bank.

(iii) In view of various provisions under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

(iv) As per Section 256 of the Companies Act, the defendants are entitled to continue as Directors until the next general body meeting is convened.

3. In the light of the broad submissions made by the learned senior counsel, now it is useful to refer the factual aspects of the case. The plaintiff calling himself as a share-holder and customer of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank has filed the said suit O.S. 158 of 96 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, for declaration to declare that defendants ceased to be Directors of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited on or from 1-4-95 and 31-12-95 and for consequential injunction restraining them from taking part in any board meeting as Directors and also any committee meeting as well as any ad hoc committee of the Bank. He also filed I.A. No. 480 of 96 in the said suit for interim injunction restraining the respondents therein (petitioners herein) from taking part in any meeting including the meeting of the Board of Directors, Committee meeting and ad hoc meeting as Directors herein filed a counteraffidavit disputing the various averments made by the respondents herein. They have also raised the jurisdiction of the Court as well as the locus standi or prejudice caused to the plaintiff.

In other words, according to them, the suit as laid by the plaintiff as we