The judgment emphasizes the importance of seeking alternative legal remedies and the need for supporting materials and admissible evidence to challenge a decree.

1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Challenging the judgment and decree, dated 12.2.2008 made in O.S. No. 414 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, this Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner is a third party to the said suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the other respondents, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from permitting any one to use water tank in Thirugnana Sambandar Street, TVS Nagar, Padi for performing ceremonies and obsequies of the dead persons.

4. It is seen that the defendants in the suit, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein remained absent and were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed by the Court below in favour of the first respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the members of the revision petitioner, Thiruvalleewarar Nagar Nala Kazhagam, Thirumangalam are using the suit property for several years by conducting ceremonies and obsequies of their relatives death and there is a clear averments in the plaint with regard to the user of the property by several persons, however, without impleading the members of the petitioner sangam, a collusive suit was filed by the first respondent and an ex parte decree was obtained by the first respondent. Being third party, the petitioner could not file a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C before the Court below to set aside the ex parte decree , hence, preferred this Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to prevent the abuse of process of law and the Court by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the decree passed by the Court below cannot be challenged, by way of revision, since it requires evidence. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, this Court is of the view that it is a mixed question of law and facts, for which adducing oral and documentary evidence is needed to decide the alleged rights claimed by the parties. Though the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, he could have obtained leave from the Court below, stating the facts and also by producing supporting materials, seeking an order to set aside the ex parte decree by way of impleading the petitioner. After obtaining leave, he could have filed petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree or the petitioner Association or any aggrieved party could have filed independent suit, challenging the decree, on the grounds raised herein. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the Court is of the view that the revision petitioners cannot seek the remedy directly in the revision, since it needs supporting materials, as admissible evidence to decide the issues involved.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied on the following decisions:

1. Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v. R. Srinivasan, 2010 (4) CTC

690 : (2010) 6 MLJ 51

2. J. Sivasubramanian and Another v. N. Govindarajan and Another (1998) 1 MLJ 643 : 1998-1-LW 372.

8. In J. Sivasubramanian and Another v. N. Govindarajan and Another (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court held that if a collusive decree is obtained by suppressing facts and without impleading necessary parties and the same is apparent, the aggrieved party can invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the relief in favour of the petitioners. In the judgment, this Court has held as follows at p. 645 of MLJ:

“ 10. I would not have thought of interfering with the decree of the lower Court, but for the admission of the respondents themselves that petitioners are in possession, and, therefore, defendant (second respondent) wanted r