Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the learned District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the un-numbered I.A. in I.A.S.R.No.4812 of 2005 in O.S.No.165 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the learned District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the un-numbered I.A. in I.A.S.R.No.4812 of 2005 in O.S.No.165 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. 2. When C.M.P.No.2862 of 2005 and V.C.M.P.No.75 of 2005 came up for hearing, with the consent of both counsel appearing for both the parties, the main Civil Revision Petition itself had been taken up for hearing. Hence, the main Civil Revision Petition is taken up along with C.M.P.No.2862 of 2005 and V.C.M.P.No.75 of 2005 for hearing and disposal. 3. O.S.No.165 of 2003:- The First Plaintiff – Sekar alias Kumar, a communicant Member is eligible Voter of Home Church, Nagercoil, C.S.I.Church of Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I and former Diocesan Council and Executive Member. The First Plaintiff has filed O.S.No.165 of 2003 in a representative capacity for himself and onbehalf of the communicant Members of the Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I, seeking for a Decree to declare that the Resolution of the Diocesan Council dated 16.01.2003 in respect of the Diocesan Council Membership is null and void. The proposed formula to elect Diocesan Council Members is challenged on the ground that it is not in accordance with the democratic formula of Diocesan Council. The Plaintiff Sekar and the newly added Second Plaintiff – Robinson have alleged that the Resolution of the Diocesan Council dated 16.01.2003 is unethical and is null and void. They have also filed the suit for Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants / Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I represented by its Bishop from implementing the impugned Resolution of the Diocesan Council dated 16.01.2003. They have also sought for Permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendant from ex-communicating them. 4. The Defendant / Kanyakumari Diocese C.S.I.Represented by its Bishop has filed Written Statement denying the allegations in the Plaint and elaborately setting forth the circumstances for passing the Resolution / Amendment dated 16.01.2003. 5. The Suit is pending Part-heard. The Second Plaintiff has filed Petition to recall and cross-examine the Fourth Respondent viz., Christian Babu. 4. The Defendant / Kanyakumari Diocese C.S.I.Represented by its Bishop has filed Written Statement denying the allegations in the Plaint and elaborately setting forth the circumstances for passing the Resolution / Amendment dated 16.01.2003. 5. The Suit is pending Part-heard. The Second Plaintiff has filed Petition to recall and cross-examine the Fourth Respondent viz., Christian Babu. At that stage, the Revision Petitioner has filed I.A.SR.No.4812 of 2005 to implead himself as additional Third Plaintiff in the suit. The Petition was with certain defects. Hence, the Petition was called in the Open Court and upon hearing the Petitioner, the Application was posted for orders on 11.04.2005. 6. At that stage, the Revision Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition for issuance of direction to the District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the un-numbered I.A. in I.A.No.4812 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. The Revision Petitioner has alleged that the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 has been filed in a representative capacity and anybody interested in the affairs of the Diocese can file application to implead themselves as Plaintiff, if they are interested in the subject matter of the suit. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the District Munsif has failed to consider that the Suit is filed in a representative capacity and that all the parties interested in the subject matter of the suit are to be necessarily be heard. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the Defendant has taken all steps to implement the Amendment before 2006, the Petitioner, who is the Adult Communicant Member of Kanyakumari C.S.I.Church is entitled to implead himself as Additional Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the District Munsif, Nagercoil has not even numbered the Application and refusing to admit the Application is erroneous and hence, seeks for issuance of the direction to the District Munsif, Nagercoil to admit the Application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 7. Taking serious objection to the filing of the Revision Petition and the submissions of the Revision Petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Chandru has submitted that Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot casually be invoked more so when the Revision Petitioner has suppressed the material facts. 7. Taking serious objection to the filing of the Revision Petition and the submissions of the Revision Petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Chandru has submitted that Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot casually be invoked more so when the Revision Petitioner has suppressed the material facts. Drawing the attention to the averments in the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition to Vacate stay, learned counsel has submitted that since the Application for impleading the Revision Petitioner was found to be defective (not rectified) the Application was heard in the Open Court and the same was posted for orders on 11.04.2005. It is further submitted that when the Application was posted for orders on 11.04.2005, suppressing the same, the Revision Petitioner has hurriedly filed the Revision Petition on 05.04.2005 and obtained Interim Stay on 08.04.2005, which has the effect of preventing the Trial Court from pronouncing the order in I.A.S.R.No.4812 of 05. Further, drawing the attention of the Court to the directions of this Court in C.R.P.(P.D.)No.271 of 2004, wherein this Court directed the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Revision Petitioner is not a diligent Petitioner and has filed the impleading petition and also the Revision only to delay the trial proceedings in O.S.No.165 of 2003. 8. When the arguments were heard in the impleading Petition and when the Petition was posted for orders on 11.04.2005, is the Revision Petitioner justified in approaching this Court filing the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and whether there is any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference are the points arise for consideration in this Revision. 9. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised by the Court in its discretion and cannot be claimed as of right by any party. The High Court's power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power. The High Court's power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited only to examine whether the Subordinate Court kept itself within the bounds of its power and whether has adopted right approach. 10. In the counter Affidavit filed by the Third Respondent / Kanyakumari Diocese represented by its Bishop, it is made clear that the Suit is in the part-heard stage – adducing evidence of the Defendants. The Second Plaintiff / Second Respondent has filed Application to recall the Fourth Respondent / Christian Babu for cross-examination. At that stage, the Application was filed by the Revision Petitioner in I.A.S.R.No.4812 of 2005 to implead himself as additional Third Plaintiff. In the supporting Affidavit, the Revision Petitioner has stated that "..now only he came to know about the illegal Amendment to the Constitution and the pending case in O.S.No.165 of 2003..." The Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 was filed by the Plaintiff in a representative capacity. There were several rounds of litigations between the Plaintiffs and the Diocese. Since the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 has been filed in a representative capacity, there must have been vide publicity for instituting the Suit in a representative capacity. One is to be too naïve to accept the contention of the Revision Petitioner that only very recently, he came to know about the Amendment of the Diocesan Constitution. 11. In paragraph 11 of the Affidavit, the Revision Petitioner has alleged that "....he has reliably learnt that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are colluding and because of that reason, the Plaintiffs have not come forward to give oral evidence before the Court and only in name sake they are conducting the case..." In that circumstance, to give effective disposal of the Suit, he is a necessary and proper party to the Suit. The averment that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are colluding is per-se incorrect. The Second Plaintiff Robinson is stiffly contesting the dispute and in fact making various allegations, the Second Plaintiff – Robinson has filed Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No.4 of 2005. The averment that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are colluding is per-se incorrect. The Second Plaintiff Robinson is stiffly contesting the dispute and in fact making various allegations, the Second Plaintiff – Robinson has filed Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No.4 of 2005. When the Second Respondent / Second Plaintiff is seriously contesting the matter, there is no basis for entertaining the doubt on the possibility of collusion between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Averments in the Affidavit are not supported either by facts or circumstances. 12. In exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court would interfere with the proceedings of the Subordinate Court only if there is error apparent on the face of records. The exercise of power is discretionary. When there is suppression of material fact, certainly the High Court would not have entertained the Revision Petition. In the Affidavit filed by the Third Respondent Diocese, it is clearly averred that the impleading petition was found to be defective and the petition was called in the open Court and the counsel for the revision petitioner was heard on the application and the application was posted for orders on 11.04.2005. At that stage, i.e. On 05.04.2005 this Civil Revision Petition was filed and Interim Stay was obtained in C.M.P.No.2862 of 2005 on 08.04.2005. The Interim Stay amounts to an interdict on the Trial Court from pronouncing the orders on the Application on 11.04.2005. In the Reply Affidavit, it is stated by the Revision Petitioner that only after filing of the Revision Petition on 05.04.2005, the Application was taken up in the Open Court and hence, the same could not be stated in the Affidavit for Stay Petition. It is to be noted that Interim Stay was obtained only subsequently on 08.04.2005. Had the Revision Petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the correct facts, it is highly doubtful whether it would have been possible for him to secure the Interim Stay of the proceedings. 13. It is also relevant to note that the Revision Petitioner does not seem to be a diligent litigant. In C.R.P.(PD)No.271 of 2004, by order dated 15.12.2004, this Court (T.V.MASILAMANI, J.) had issued directions to the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. In C.R.P.(PD)No.271 of 2004, by order dated 15.12.2004, this Court (T.V.MASILAMANI, J.) had issued directions to the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. By obtaining the stay in the proceedings in the Suit, the Revision Petitioner has only delayed the Trial Proceedings in O.S.No.165 of 2003. It is also to be noted that the issuance of direction to dispose of the suit within the time frame has also not been set forth in the Stay Petition. 14. It is stated that the Application I.A.S.R.No.4812 of 2005 is posted for orders on 15.04.2005. In the Approach of the Trial Court, there is no error apparent on the face of records, warranting interference in invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Revision Petition is bereft of merits and is bound to fail. 15. In the result, this Revision Petition seeking direction to Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the un-numbered I.A. in I.A.S.R.No.4812 of 2005 in O.S.No.165 of 2003 is dismissed. The V.C.M.P.No.75 of 2005 filed by the Third Respondent / Kanyakumari Diocese C.S.I. Represented by its Bishop is allowed and the Interim Stay granted in C.M.P.No.2862 of 2005 on 08.04.2005 is vacated. The C.M.P.No.2862 of 2005 is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.