T. MATHIVANAN, J.

Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this memorandum of civil revision has been filed by the first defendant in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 09.09.2015 and made in I.A.No.683 of 2015 in O.S.No.312 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur.

2. The first defendant in the suit O.S.No.312 of 2015 is the revision petitioner herein whereas the respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs. The fourth respondent herein being the second defendant in the suit had passed away. The respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed the suit O.S.No.312 of 2015 as against the revision petitioner/first defendant as well as against the remaining defendants seeking the following reliefs:

(a) granting a decree for declaration declaring that the respondents 1 to 3 /plaintiffs are the Hereditary Trustees-cum-Archakars of the suit temples; and

(b) granting a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men, servants, agents or any one on their behalf from in any manner interfering with the day-to-day management of the suit temples and day-to-day performance of poojas in the suit temples by the plaintiffs.

3. Along with the plaint, the respondents/plaintiffs have also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.683 of 2015 to grant an order of temporary injunction as against the revision petitioner/first defendant and other defendants in the suit. The revision petitioner/first defendant has contested the suit by filing his written statement. No contest is made on behalf of the fourth respondent/second defendant as he had passed away. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the evidences adduced on both sides, the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur has proceeded to allow the petition granting an order of interim injunction. This order dated 09.09.2015 has been challenged in this revision.

4. Heard Mr. R. Vijayakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

5. Before, we go into the merits of the case, the question of maintainability of this revision is arisen for the consideration of this Court. It is obvious to note that the impugned order seems to have been passed by the trial Court under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As contemplated under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) as well as Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order passed under Section XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC is an appealable order and not revisable order.

6. However, a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can also be maintained before this Court to exercise its power of superintendence to stretch its hand over the Subordinate Courts to set their wrong at right. Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers on the High Court, the power of superintendence over the Courts and Tribunals within the State or within its jurisdiction. It is significant to note here that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India is in addition to the power conferred upon this Court to control inferior Courts or Tribunals through Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunals within the limits of that authority and ensuring that they obey the law. As observed by the Apex Court in Baby v. Travancore Devaswom Board reported in (1998) 9 SCC 310, this power of superintendence is also in addition to the powers of revision under any legislation. However, since it being a supervisory power, it has to be exercised as such, distinct from appellate power. This principle is also laid down by the Apex Court in Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri v. Bhaskar Balwant Aher reported in (2000) 3 SCC 190 (equivalent to AIR 2000 SC 931). It is to be noted that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is of an administrative as well as jud