Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
T.K. Chithran - Petitioner
Versus
C. Samsari @ Chithran & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.PD (MD) Nos. 686 of 2014 & 687 of 2014
Decided On: 23-03-2015
Civil Procedure Code - Section 47 - Order 2 - Rule 2 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Recovery of Possession and for damages - Permanent injunction - Possession of property - It is evident was filed by petitioner against first respondent herein for permanent injunction and suit was decreed – Again was filed by petitioner for relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession which was also decreed - In E.P proceedings petitioner had taken possession of property – Admittedly there are no appeals are filed against said decrees - An application filed by first respondent herein under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed - A claim petition was also dismissed - In all above said proceedings claim of first respondent that he is owner of property was negative and title of petitioners herein were confirmed - While so was filed by first respondent herein to declare that decree was null and void - Even said suit was dismissed – Held, Power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle - In an appropriate case power can be exercised - On a proper appreciation of wide and unfettered power of High Court under Article 227 it transpires that main object of this article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by High Court on administration of justice within its territory - Object of superintendence both administrative and judicial is to maintain efficiency smooth and orderly functioning of entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute - Power of interference under this article is to be kept to minimum to ensure that wheel of justice does not come to a halt and fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in functioning of tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court - An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality - From above decision it is clear that power under Article 227 of Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where judicial conscience of this Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice would occasion - This Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into an appellate Court and appreciate or evaluate facts by itself and draw inference - In Court considered view remedy open to petitioner is to move same Court where suits are filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and make out applicability of ingredients of said Rule - Without doing so petitioners cannot be permitted to rush to this Court - Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed
1. There are two revisions. The first defendant in O.S.Nos.71 and 118 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Natham are the revision petitioners herein.
2. These Civil Revisions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to strike off the suits in O.S.Nos.71 and 118 of 2012.
| Case No. | Relief | Result | Description of Property | Parties |
| O S No. 285/2000 | Permanent injunction | Decreed on 27/02/2001 | S.Nos.303, 304/1, 307/1, 311/2, 314/4 B, 314/5, 316/6 and 315/5 Vadipatti Taluk | T.K.Chitran Ambalam Vs. C.Samsari @ Chithran |
| District Munsif Court, Dindigul O S No.551/2001 District Munsif Dindigul | Recovery of Possession and for damages | Decreed on 09/01/2004 | Item No.1 -Door No.2/106 Item No.2 - 105/A Vadipatti Taluk | T.K.Chitran Ambalam Vs. Samsari @ Chithran and 5 others |
| EP No. 8/2006 | For recovery of possession | Delivery effected and E.P terminated on 20/3/2012 |
|
|
| O S 85/2006District Munsif Nattam | Declaration that the decree in O.S.No.551/2001 and E.P.8 of 2006 are null and void | Dismissed on 27/06/2012 | Suit schedule property | Samsari @ Chithiran Vs. T.K.Chithran Ambalam |
| O S 71/2012 District Munsif, Natham | To declare the plaintiff as joint owner and permanent injunction. |
| S.No.303/2A1 - 0.09.02/162A - house 2/162/B } 2/163/B }shops | C.Samsari @ Chitran Vs.1. T.K.Chithiran and four others |
| O S 118/2012 | Suit for partition of 1/6th share |
| (1) S.No.303/2 A1 - 0.38 cents(2) S.No.303/3A2 - 0.18.0 (3) S.No. 307/1C3 - 0.39.5 (4) S.No.307/1/C7 - 0.04.5 (5) S.No. 307/1 C10 - 0.02.0 (6) S.No.311/2B - 0.28.0 (7) S.No.313/5B - 0.16.0 (8) S.No.313/6A 1 - 0.11.0 (9) S.No.313/6 A7 - 0.88.5 (10) S.No.314/4 B2 - 0.71.5 (11) S.No.314/5 D - 0.25.5 (12) S.No.304/1 B - 0.50.0 (13) S.No.314/43 B - 0.17 (14) S.No.314/4B4 - 0.16 (15) S.No.620/15 - 0.01.08 | C.Samsari @ Chithran Vs. 1. T.K.Chithiran Ambalam and four others. |
3. From the above column, it is evident that O.S.No.285 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.687 of 2014 against the first respondent herein for permanent injunction and the suit was decreed. Again, O.S.No.551 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.687 of 2014 for relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession which was also decreed.
4. In the E.P proceedings in E.P.No.8 of 2006, the petitioner in C.R.P.PD (MD) No.687 of 2014 had taken possession of the property in O.S.No.551 of 2001. Admittedly, there are no appeals are filed against the said decrees. An application filed by the first respondent herein under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed on 13/6/2015. A claim petition in E.A.No.24 of 2009 was also dismissed.
5. In all the above said proceedings, the claim of the first respondent that he is the owner of the property was negatived and the title of the petitioners herein were confirmed. While so, O.S.No.85 of 2006 was filed by the first respondent herein to declare that the decree in O.S.No.551 of 2001 was null and void. Even the said suit was dismissed on 27/6/2012.
6. While so, O.S.Nos.71 of 1992 and 118 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Natham have been filed by the first respondent herein for a declaration that the first respondent is the joint owner and for partition of 1/6th share.
7. The present revisions are filed by the revision petitioner who is the first defendant in the above suits for striking off the said suits from the file of the District Munsif, Natham.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.
9. According to the petitioner, with regard to the suit property in the above said suits, already finality has been arrived at in the earlier suits. There were no appeals preferred by the first respondent agains
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
