ORDER :

These two Revisions have been posted for maintainability. The order challenged in both these Revisions is an order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.938 of 2021, an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Administrative Committee from taking any policy decisions on appointments, change of correspondents, apart from carrying out the day to day affairs until the conduct of 34th CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the functions of the plaintiff as a Presbyter and Chairman of the CIS All Souls' Church, Coimbatore and for other reliefs.

2. The suit in O.S.No.938 of 2021 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that certain resolutions passed by the Administrative Committee of the CSI Coimbatore Diocese on 19.07.2021 are illegal and null and void and for consequential injunctive reliefs.

3. Pending suit, the plaintiff sought for an injunction as stated above in I.A.No.2 of 2021. The trial Court had granted an injunction as prayed for in I.A.No.2 of 2021. Aggrieved, the defendants in the suit, have come up with these Revisions.

4. The Revisions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Registry cited the availability of alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the order passed in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and queried the maintainability of the Revisions. The counsel for the petitioner in CRP.Sr.No.109971 of 2021 re-presented it, claiming that a Revision would be maintainable, in view of proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of such return endorsement made, both these Revisions are listed for hearing on maintainability.

5. I have heard Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRP.Sr.No.10997 of 2021 and Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRP.Sr.No.111067 of 2021.

6. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel would submit that de hors the availability of the remedy by way of an appeal, under the Code of civil Procedure, it is open to a party to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when he is able to demonstrate that the trial Court had over stepped its limits in granting injunction.

7. He would draw my attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another reported in AIR 1954 SC 215, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised more sparingly and only in appropriate cases, in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.

8. He would also trace legislative history of Article 227 of the Constitution of India from Section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861, to contend that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, extends to judicial superintendence also and if the High Court finds that a Civil Court or a Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or they have refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law, it is open to the High Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Reliance is also placed in the judgment of Nagendra Nath Bora and another Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and others reported in AIR 1958 SC 398, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had after referring to the judgment in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another referred to supra observed as follows:-

37. But the question still remains as to what is the legal import of the expression 'error of law apparent on the face of the record'. Is it every error of law that can attract the supe