The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventing the abuse of process of law and the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

1. Seeking the relief of striking off the plaint in O.S.No.237 of 2013, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, this memorandum of civil revision petition is filed, after invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the stranger to the suit in O.S.No.237 of 2013, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, which has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff herein, as against the second respondent/defendant, seeking the relief of bare injunction restraining him from disturbing the first respondent/plaintiff's Cable TV operation business.

3. This suit is pending trial. Along with the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff has also taken out an interlocutory application in I.A.No.678 of 2013, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the relief of ad interim injunction against the second respondent/defendant and he has also obtained the order of interim injunction.

4. On coming to know about the granting of interim injunction against the second respondent/defendant, the revision petitioner/stranger to the suit has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.730 of 2013, under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to implead him as a proposed second defendant in the suit. It appears that the said interlocutory application is still pending.

5. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner/proposed second defendant has approached this Court with this memorandum of civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.237 of 2013, on the ground that the relief sought for in the suit in O.S.No.237 of 2013 is a sheer abuse of process of law without impleading him as a necessary party to the suit and according to him on account of the order of ad interim injunction granted as against the second respondent/defendant herein, he is the person going to be affected and incurred severe damage and loss.

6. It is revealed from the records that the second respondent/defendant Inspector of Police attached to Uthamapalayam Police Station has been served with private notice as early as on 12.03.2013. However, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through his counsel.

7. Heard Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/proposed second defendant as well as Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for Mr. K. Kevinkaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff and also perused the materials available on record.

8. According to Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, the relief sought for in the suit in O.S.No.237 of 2013, without impleading the revision petitioner, is a gross abuse of process of law and that he is the person, who is going to be affected by the order of ad interim injunction granted in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff by the Trial Court.

9. It may be significant to note here that the revision petitioner/proposed second defendant has also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.730 of 2013, on the file of the Trial Court, under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C., to implead him as the proposed second defendant and that interlocutory application is still pending. The prime question arises for the consideration of this Court is as to whether this memorandum of civil revision petition can be maintained by the revision petitioner/proposed second defendant, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is filed to strike off the plaint in the suit and another question also arises as to whether the non-impleadment of the revision petitioner/proposed second defendant in the suit can be construed as a sheer abuse of process of law.

10. In this connection, this Court would like to point out that the power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is very wide and discretionary in nature. It is well settled that the power of superintende