Munsif can not refer any matter directly to Supreme Court.

This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the taking on file of the suit in O.S.No.733 of 2004 which has been filed before the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, for obtaining the following reliefs:

"(a) making a direction for contempt of Court proceedings by referring the same before the Supreme Court of India to be initiated the 2nd defendant, who is the General Secretary of the 1st defendant for the disobedience and contempt of Supreme Courts judgment rendered in favour of Mrs.Sonia Gandhis citizenship in Civil Appeals Nos.4400/2000 and 4405/2000 dated 12.09.2001 from escaping the clutches of law.

(b) for award cost of the suit.

(c) for such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in future circumstances of the case and thus render justice."

2. The parties are referred to according to their lititgative status before the trial Court for clarity sake.

3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the facts as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

The first plaintiff is a public figure interested in the Congress Party. The second plaintiff is the Secretary of the Pallakadu All India Congress Party. The third plaintiff is the freedom fighter. The fourth plaintiff belongs to a family of freedom fighters.

4. The Honourable Apex Court gave its verdict regarding the status of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi that she is a citizen of India vide the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeals Nos.4400/2000 and 4405/2000 dated 12.09.2001. Disregarding the same, the first defendant Selvi. J. Jayalalithaa, General Secretary, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, has openly declared that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is a foreigner. In Public meetings held on various dates including 11.03.2004, she declared so. Her version was published in the following News Papers:

TABLE

5. The plaintiffs have chosen to file the suit expressing their grievance that the defendants public utterance amounts to gross contempt of the Honourable Apex Courts verdict.

6. On receipt of the summons, the defendants in the suit, namely, the revision petitioner/first defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the maintainability of the suit and also the factum of the suit having taken on file by the Court concerned, on the following grounds inter alia thus:

The civil Court is having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with the aforesaid prayer. The said suit should be ordered to be removed from the file. The Munsif Court cannot be used as a forum for referring the alleged Contempt committed by the first defendant to the Honourable Apex Court.

7. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the counter, the warp and woof, the gist and kernel of it, would run thus:

The revision petitioner described Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as a foreigner and also foreign import antithetical to the verdict of the Honourable Apex Court. The Civil Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the Civil Revision Petition.

8. The point for consideration is as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs, ex facie and prima facie is tenable?

9. Heard both sides.

10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would draw the attention of this Court to the fact that the Civil Court as per Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can very well entertain any suit of civil nature; it is a common law remedy to get the grievance of the citizens redressed by approaching the civil Court; the nitty-gritty of the prayer in the suit is only for the purpose of making the Civil court to refer the matter to the Honourable Apex Court to initiate contempt proceedings as against the defendant; the wordings in the prayer may not be so appropriate; even so, the intention of the plaintiffs in filing the suit is only for the purpose of initiating contempt proceedings as against the defendant for having uttered out the aforesaid words disregarding the verdict of the Hono