An appeal is the proper remedy against the order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.

The plaintiff has filed the revision petition challenging the order dated 28.08.2007 made in I.A.No.266 of 2007 in O.S.No.128 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No.2, Madurai.

2. The brief facts of the case of the revision petitioner are as follows:

The revision petitioner filed the suit praying for decree:

1.By declaring one of the defendants is a real owner/landlord of the suit “A” Schedule building, entitled to receive the rent from the plaintiff and in consequence to restrain the defendants from in any manner evicting the plaintiff without determining the ownership of the property.

2. Direct the defendants to pay the costs of this action.

3. Such and further relives as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

It is specifically pleaded by the revision petitioner/plaintiff that he is willing to pay the rent to the rightful owner to be determined by the Court viz. first defendant or second defendant. The suit, therefore, was filed. A written statement was filed by the first respondent/Second Defendant denying the plea in the plaint. The first respondent/defendant has also filed I.A.No.266 of 2007 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order XXXV Rule 5 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint contending that the suit is barred by law. A counter was filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. On contest the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai, for the reasons stated in the order allowed the application and rejected the plaint and the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the Civil Revision Petition is filed and is before the Court unnumbered. The matter is before the Court for maintainability on an objection raised by the registry. The first respondent/second defendant on notice appeared through the counsel Shri.Ramachandran.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. C.M.Hariraj reported in 2002(1) CTC 742 and submitted that the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable as against the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

4. On going through the said decision reported in 2002(1) CTC 742, it is apparent that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution interfered with the decision of the District Munsif Court on the ground that the trial Courts order rejecting the plaint is an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court found fault with the order of the District Munsif going into factual aspects without even calling upon the defendant to appear and state his defence. The Court held that the case did not fall within the parameters of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. The most important fact that weighed in the mind of the Court is the rejection of the plaint by the Court below without giving notice to the opposite party. Therefore, it held that the order of District Munsif Court is not sustainable in Law. The reason for the High Court to resort to Article 227 is stated in paragraph 15 of the decision and it reads as under:

"15. The power under Article 227 is an extraordinary power, and it requires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. It is a power of superintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it cannot be claimed as of right by any party. By now, it has been settled by pronouncements of the highest Court in the land as to when this Court could properly resort to and exercise the powers under Article 227. The well accepted contingencies and features to warrant the exercise of such powers are:

(i) Lack of jurisdiction, erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction;

(ii) Grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or an erroneous decision of law;

(iii) Violation of