Judicial superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked if an alternative remedy under civil procedure is available.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.2377 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD)No.10620 of 2018

1.V.A.K.Sheik Mohideen

2.V.A.K.Mohamed Ferrous ... Revision Petitioners Vs.

K.Natarajan ... Respondent PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to reject the plaint in O.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai and allow this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioners : Mrs.M.Rajeswari for Mr.S.M.S.Jonny Bhasha For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed to reject the plaint in O.S.No.

12 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai.

2. The brief facts of the case:

The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai. The respondent has filed a main suit in O.S.No.12 of 2018 for the relief of declaration that the suit property belonged to him and for permanent injunction against the revision petitioners. On service of suit notice along with the copy of plaint, the revision petitioners have filed this present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to reject the plaint in O.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has argued that the respondent has already filed a suit in O.S.No.42 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranaur against the District Collector, Tahsildar and the revision petitioners herein seeking injunction in respect of the suit property and the said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the main suit in O.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court ought not to have numbered the suit as it is barred under Order II Rule 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and the Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code as the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. At the time of admission, this Court held that it is a case of re-litigation and therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is admitted for striking off the plaint. The Trial Court has not considered these aspects and the dismissal of the earlier suit. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition may be allowed by striking off the plaint in O.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the earlier suit was filed against the government officials and the revision petitioners and in that suit the learned District Judge observed that the suit was filed seeking only a bare injunction, but the plaintiff therein had not sought for declaratory relief in respect of suit property and hence, the suit was not maintainable. Thereafter, the respondent has made averments and filed the present suit in O.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai specifically for the relief of declaration that the suit property belonged to the respondent and for permanent injunction against the revision petitioners alone. The petitioners have not filed the decree copy of the earlier suit in this Civil Revision Petition. The petitioners have mentioned their names which differed from the suit. If the petitioners state that the present plaint is hit by res judicata or Barred by Limitation, the petitioners have to raise the same as a preliminary issue in the suit itself and they could not directly approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for striking the plaint. As per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the