Third party to suit can challenge decree by preferring appeal against same.

These civil revision petitions Sr.Nos. 23271 & 23275 of 2006 having been listed on this day, for maintainability in the presence of Mr. N. Dilip Kumar, advocate for the petitioner in each of the petitions, the Court made the following order:

Against the decree and judgment dated 11.10.2001 made in O.S. No. 19 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, the third parties have sought to file revision petitions in C.R.P. SR. Nos.23271 and 23275 of 2006.

2. The Registry, returned the papers raising objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the decree and judgment dated 11.10.2000.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner re-presented the papers stating that the decree has been obtained in collusion and the issue involved goes to the root of the matter and that the decree has been passed without impleading necessary parties. Hence the office posted these matters for deciding maintainability.

4. Learned counsel stated that the petitioners are suffering disconnection of power supply because of the impugned decree of the Civil Court and hence they are affected parties and the revision petition under Article 227 are maintainable. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 3 MLJ 60 : 2003 (4) CTC 48.

5. The question is as to whether the petitioners, who are third parties are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and file the revision petitions.

6. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (supra), it is held that the High Courts power of superintendence is the power to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner and there cannot be any hard and fast rule for exercising the said power and each case has to be decided on its own merits and even though the power is there, but the exercise is discretionary which would be governed solely by the dictates of the judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge. In the said judgment in paragraph 25, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus at (p. 69 of MLJ):

“ 25. In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternate efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the Legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior Court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be a sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior Court or Tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the pro