2008 Supreme(Mad) 2950

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
The Diocese of Tirunelveli (C.S.I) rep. By its Bishop, Bishop Stowe & Others
Versus
The Church of South India rep. by its Moderator & Others
C.R.P (PD) Nos.2527 to 2529 of 2008 and C.R.P (PD) Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008 and connected miscellaneous petitions
Decided on : 18-08-2008

The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed, even by way of any Constitutional amendment, as that of Article 32 of the Constitution available to the Apex Court, however, it can be sparingly used, when there is no alternative remedy available, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:

CHURCH COUNCIL - DIOCESAN COUNCIL - ELECTION DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - FORUM SHOPPING - FRAUD ON COURT - SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES - STATUS QUO ORDER - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS - REVISION - MAINTAINABILITY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION - EXERCISE OF - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - GRAVE INJUSTICE OR FAILURE OF JUSTICE - JURISDICTION ASSUMED WITHOUT AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION NOT EXERCISED WHEN AVAILABLE - JURISDICTION EXERCISED IN A MANNER AMOUNTING TO OVERSTEPPING LIMITS - POWER OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 - INHERENT IN THE HIGH COURT - NOT CURTAILED BY THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - EXERCISE OF POWER - SPARINGLY AND ONLY IN APPROPRIATE CASES - TO KEEP SUBORDINATE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS WITHIN BOUNDS OF THEIR AUTHORITY - NOT FOR CORRECTING MERE ERRORS - POWER OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 227 NOT GREATER THAN UNDER ARTICLE 226 - POWER UNDER ARTICLE 227 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT AN ERROR OF FACT WHICH ONLY A SUPERIOR COURT CAN DO IN EXERCISE OF ITS STATUTORY POWER AS COURT OF APPEAL - HIGH COURT CANNOT CONVERT ITSELF INTO A COURT OF APPEAL IN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 - POWER OF SUPERVISION UNDER ARTICLE 227 CANNOT BE INVOKED MERELY TO CORRECT ANY ERROR OF FACT AS AN APPELLATE COURT AND WHEN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY UNDER ARTICLE 227 CANNOT BE INVOKED.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they have been duly elected as the office bearers of the Church Council and Diocesan Council of the second defendant, the Diocese of Tirunelveli (C.S.I), represented by its Bishop and also for consequential permanent injunction restraining the said second defendant, its men, subordinates, agents etc., from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs discharging their duties and performing their function including in the matter of appointment and transfer of teachers in schools and colleges of the second defendant Diocese. The respondents/plaintiffs have sought for an interim injunction to restrain the revision petitioner/second defendant in the suit from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners in their respective posts alleged by them. However, by order, dated 30.04.2008, the court below has granted only an order of status quo. Aggrieved by which, C.R.P (PD) No.2601 of 2008 has been preferred. Subsequently, by order, dated 21.07.2008 passed in I.A.No.9666 of 2008, the court below has directed the parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date prior to 212. 2007. Aggrieved by which, C.R.P (PD) No.2602 of 2008 has been preferred.

Finding of the Court:

The court below has improperly varied the order, subsequently, by granting status quo ante, prior to 212. 2007, without any basis. There is deliberate suppression of material facts by the respondents/plaintiffs, apart from forum shopping and a total contradictory plea for the alleged cause of action to file the suit, which leads to the inference of fraud being played on the court below by the respondents/plaintiffs. The impugned orders have been passed against the revision petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008, though specific allegations were raised against them by the respondent/plaintiffs in the plaint, but, without impleading them as necessary parties, behind their back, hence, the order is affected by non-joinder of necessary parties. There are materials available to show forum shopping. In the light of the decisions referred to above, I am of the view that the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the court below in I.A.No.6990 of 2008 and I.A.No.9666 of 2008 are expacie illegal and without jurisdiction and fraud has been played on the part of the court below and therefore the affected parties can maintain the revision petition by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is not legally precluded on the facts and circumstances of this case.

Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Revision Petitions filed, by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India are legally maintainable, on the ground of alternative remedy available? 2. Whether there is any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders, so as to warrant any interference of this Court in the revisions?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power under Articles 226 and 227 is a basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed, even by way of any Constitutional amendment, as that of Article 32 of the Constitution available to the Apex Court, however, it can be sparingly used, when there is no alternative remedy available, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. 2. The power of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is always in addition to the revisional jurisdiction conferred on it. 3. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when – (i) the Court or Tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.

Final Decision: C.R.P (PD) Nos.2527 and 2528 of 2008 are dismissed and C.R.P (PD) Nos.2529, 2601 and 2602 of 2008 are allowed. The trial court is directed to dispose the suit according to law on merits, within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, without considering the findings of this Court in the revisions.