The Court emphasized the need for exceptional circumstances to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 and the requirements for granting temporary injunction.

1. The defendants/respondents in O.S.No.548 of 2009/I.A.No.897 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, are the revision petitioners herein.

2. The respondent herein filed the above suit stating that he was validly appointed by the Governing Council of American College as Bursar and he has not been terminated from that post and therefore, he is entitled to hold that post till another person is validly appointed by the Governing Council of the College and for consequential injunction restraining the revision petitioners herein from interfering with his functions as Bursar of the American College.

.3. The case of the respondent herein, as seen from the plaint is that he was appointed as Bursar of the American College on 03.06.2006 by the Governing Council and his appointment has not been terminated and as per the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.790, 796 & 797 of 2008, dated 24.08.2009, his appointment was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court and in his place, no other person has been validly appointed and the Principal/Secretary of the American College with a view to usurp the office of Bursar, is preventing the respondent herein from acting as Bursar and also claim to have appointed the 2nd petitioner herein as Bursar and on that pretext, the revision petitioners are trying to interfere with his functioning as the Bursar and prayed for the reliefs aforesaid mentioned.

4. Along with the suit, the respondent herein also filed I.A.No.897 of 2009 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioners herein from interfering with his functioning as the Bursar of the American College, pending the suit. The revision petitioners, who were the respondents, before the lower Court filed separate counter taking the same plea that the term of appointment of the respondent herein, came to an end on 31.05.2008 and the Governing Council in its regular meeting held on 28.05.2008 appointed the 2nd petitioner herein as Bursar of the American College and his tenure was extended for a further period of one year from 26.05.2009 and after 31.05.2008, the respondent never functioned or acted as a Bursar of the College and the 2nd petitioner only is acting as Bursar and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any order of temporary injunction.

5. Before the lower Court, the revision petitioners filed 25 documents and the respondent filed 12 documents and the learned Subordinate Judge, on the basis of the pleadings and documents, allowed the application I.A.No.897 of 2009 in O.S.No.548 of 2009 and granted temporary injunction. This order is challenged in this civil revision.

6. Mr.Issac Mohan Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, submitted that though an appeal remedy is available under Order 43 Rule(1)(r) C.P.C, having regard to the fact that the lower Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the order of temporary injunction and has decided the main issue under the guise of granting temporary injunction and proceeded on the basis that the materials were placed before the Court to substantiate the case of the respondent that he is acting as Bursar of the American College when no materials were placed and hence, the revision petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Hefurther submitted that the order of the lower Court is perverse as the findings are not based on any evidence and the lower Court has also given a finding that the 2nd petitioner is acting as Bursar and despite such finding, the lower Court has granted injunction in favour of the respondents and also held that the 2nd petitioner herein has not proved that he has been validly appointed as Bursar, which amounts to granting the main relief and therefore, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court has been invoked to set aside the order passed by the l