Ratios
a. Power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly only to keep the courts and tribunals within their bounds of authority and not to correct mere errors.
b. Where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal or revision, then exercise of power under Article 227 may be refused, on the ground of availability of such alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision to the aggrieved party.

1. Petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to strike off the plaint in the suit filed by the first respondent herein, viz. O.S. No.8134 of 2011 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court Judge, Chennai.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :-

The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed a suit in O.S. No.8134 of 2011 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court Judge, Chennai for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from dealing with the suit property to an extent of7.46 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.24/2, 25/2B, 26, 56, 58, 59, 60 and 61(Part) at Nerkundram Village in any manner, including bringing the property for sale without paying the consideration to the plaintiff as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.8.2008 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants.

3. The relevant facts pleaded by the plaintiff/1st respondent in the plaint is that he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 14.8.2008, wherein it was agreed that the plaintiff/1st respondent would use his good offices to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for getting approval and to procure a buyer in respect of the suit schedule property belonging to the defendants/petitioners. The defendants agreed to pay commission immediately after obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the CMDA. However, after obtaining the NOC, the defendants requested the plaintiff to secure a buyer for the suit schedule property and promised to pay his commission out of the sale proceeds as they did not sufficient funds at that point of time. Though the plaintiff had obtained the NOC after a great deal of difficulty, he was made to wait for the sale of the suit property to get his agreed commission. The MoU also stipulated that the plaintiff would secure buyers for the suit schedule property at around rupees sixteen crores per acre. Apart from the above two works, it was agreed that the plaintiff should keep the defendants informed about the developments and also supply the defendants, copies of the documents submitted to the CMDA and other authorities. As per Clause 4 of the MoU, for completion of the above work, it was agreed that the plaintiff would be paid a sum of Rs.14.92 crores by the buyer of the property and the above amount would be payable upon the sale of the property and only after registration of sale deed in favour of the proposed purchaser. In addition, it was also agreed that the plaintiff would be paid a service charge of a sum equal to 5% of the net sale prize, viz. 16 crores per acre for 7.46 acres, after deducting the amount paid as above and also Rs.35 lakhs paid towards the expenses multiplied by 5% of the property at the time of registration of the sale deed, as additional compensation by the buyer of the property for the actions undertaken by the plaintiff in obtaining NOC and procuring a prospective buyer for the property. As per Clause 5(b) of the MoU, it was agreed that the defendants would pay a maximum of Rs.35 lakhs for incidental expenses to the plaintiff. It was initially agreed that the plaintiff would complete all the above works on or before 13.2.2009. However, the above period was periodically extended by mutual consent between the parties, and the MoU was also periodically extended, and finally the period for completion of the above work was extended till 15.5.2011. As per the terms of the MoU, it was the duty of the defendants to furnish copies of patta, chitta adangal, sale deed documents, any form of correspondence and all revenue records to the plaintiff. Apart from the above, the defendants would also furnish copies of relevant documents pertaining to the property to the plaintiff to facilitate him to proceed further in obtaining the NOC from CMDA and to procure the prospective purchasers for the above property. The defendan