Judgment : These civil revision petitions Sr.Nos. 23271 & 23275 of 2006 having been listed on this day, for maintainability in the presence of Mr. N. Dilip Kumar, advocate for the petitioner in each of the petitions, the Court made the following order: Against the decree and judgment dated 11.10.2001 made in O.S. No. 19 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, the third parties have sought to file revision petitions in C.R.P. SR. Nos.23271 and 23275 of 2006. 2. The Registry, returned the papers raising objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petitions under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the decree and judgment dated 11.10.2000. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner re-presented the papers stating that the decree has been obtained in collusion and the issue involved goes to the root of the matter and that the decree has been passed without impleading necessary parties. Hence the office posted these matters for deciding maintainability. 4. Learned counsel stated that the petitioners are suffering disconnection of power supply because of the impugned decree of the Civil Court and hence they are affected parties and the revision petition under Article 227 are maintainable. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 3 MLJ 60 : 2003 (4) CTC 48. 5. The question is as to whether the petitioners, who are third parties are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and file the revision petitions. 6. 5. The question is as to whether the petitioners, who are third parties are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and file the revision petitions. 6. In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (supra), it is held that the High Courts power of superintendence is the power to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner and there cannot be any hard and fast rule for exercising the said power and each case has to be decided on its own merits and even though the power is there, but the exercise is discretionary which would be governed solely by the dictates of the judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge. In the said judgment in paragraph 25, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus at (p. 69 of MLJ): “ 25. In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternate efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the Legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior Court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be a sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior Court or Tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have concluded.“ 7. In this case, the grievance of the petitioners is that they were not parties to the proceeding in O. S. No. 19 of 2000 and hence they are unable to file appeal against the said decree and judgment even though the said judgment affects their right. 8. Now, what is to be decided is whether the petitioners have got an alternate remedy of filing appeal against the decree and judgment in O.S. No.19 of 2000. 9. (a) Similar issue arose before the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. Golcha Properties AIR 1971 SC 374 : 1970 (3) SCC 573 , wherein in para 3 it is held as follows: “ 3……it is wholly incomprehensible how the appellant could be deprived of her right to get her grievance redressed by filing an appeal against the order which had been made in her absence and without her knowledge. It would be a travesty of justice if a party is driven to file a suit which would involve long and cumbersome procedure when an order has been made directly affecting that party and redress can be had by filing an appeal which is permitted by law. It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment.” (b) In the decision State of Punjab v. Amar Singh AIR 1974 SC 994 : 1974 (2) SCC 70 in para 29, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus: ”29………. As a matter of fact, the State, which is not a party to the proceedings, does not have a right of appeal. The ordinary rule is that only a party to a suit adversely affected by the decree or any of his representatives-in-interest may file an appeal. As a matter of fact, the State, which is not a party to the proceedings, does not have a right of appeal. The ordinary rule is that only a party to a suit adversely affected by the decree or any of his representatives-in-interest may file an appeal. Under such circumstances a person who is not a party may prefer an appeal with the leave of the appellate Court “if he would be prejudicially affected by the judgment and if it would be binding on him as res judicata under Explanation 6 to Section 11.“ (See MULLAs CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 18th edn., Vol. 1, p.421). Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which may perhaps be invoked by a party even under the Act, also speaks of applications by any party interested……” (c) A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Courtj also considered a similar issue as to the right of a person affected by a decree, who is not a party to the proceeding, to file an appeal with leave of the Court, in the decision in United Commercial Bank v. Hanuman Synthetics Ltd. and Others United Commercial Bank v. Hanuman Synthetics Ltd. and Others United Commercial Bank v. Hanuman Synthetics Ltd. and Others AIR 1985 Cal. 96 . In that decision the Calcutta High Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (supra) in para 16 held as under: ”16. We were referred to a large number of decisions of various High Courts on this point, but it is not necessary to discuss those judgments in view of the clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (supra). In our opinion, the appellant was entitled to prefer this appeal with leave of the appeal Court. In our opinion, the appellant was entitled to prefer this appeal with leave of the appeal Court. The appeal cannot be dismissed in limine as not maintainable.” (d) A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Petromarine Products Ltd., Company Incorporated under the Laws of Cyprus v. Ocean Marine Services Company Ltd. Petromarine Products Ltd., Company Incorporated under the Laws of Cyprus v. Ocean Marine Services Company Ltd. Petromarine Products Ltd., Company Incorporated under the Laws of Cyprus v. Ocean Marine Services Company Ltd. (2004) 1 MLJ 525 , relying on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M Servai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra, Bombay Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M Servai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra, Bombay Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M Servai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra, Bombay AIR 1971 SC 385 : 1970 (2) SCC 484 and State of Punjab and Others v. Amarsingh and Others State of Punjab and Others v. Amarsingh and Others State of Punjab and Others v. Amarsingh and Others AIR 1974 SC 994 , in para 13 held thus: “ 13. As a general principle, no one can appeal unless he was a party to the proceedings or was treated as such or legal representative of the party or unless his privity in estate, title or interest is apparent on the face of the record. However, any person having a legal grievance which might have deprived him of the benefit or bound by the order passed is certainly entitled to the leave. It is more appropriate to refer the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M. Servai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra, Bombay Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M. Servai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra, Bombay Adi Pheroz Shah Gandhi v. H.M. Servai, Advocate-General of Maharashtra, Bombay AIR 1971 SC 385 and State of Punjab and Others v. Amarsingh and Others State of Punjab and Others v. Amarsingh and Others State of Punjab and Others v. Amarsingh and Others AIR 1974 SC 994 at 1016. It is from that point of view the appellant is an aggrieved person. Even in case of doubt as to the existence of the right of appeal, the appellant should get the benefit of doubt hence we hold that the appellant is entitled to file the appeal, as such the appeal is maintainable.” 10. It is from that point of view the appellant is an aggrieved person. Even in case of doubt as to the existence of the right of appeal, the appellant should get the benefit of doubt hence we hold that the appellant is entitled to file the appeal, as such the appeal is maintainable.” 10. In view of the above cited decisions, I hold that the petitioners are having effective remedy of filing appeal by obtaining leave of the appellate Court and if the petitioners establish before the appellate Court that they are aggrieved due to the said decree and judgment, leave is bound to be given by the appellate Court. Hence I am of the view that the revision petitions sought to be filed are not maintainable and consequently CRP. SR Nos. 23271 and 23275 of 2006 are rejected and the objection raised by the Registry regarding maintainability is sustained.