Judgment :- The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the registration of plaint in O.S.No.2531/2009 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The facts :- 2. The suit in O.S.No.2531/2009 was preferred by the first Respondent before the trial Court. The material averments in the plaint read thus :- (a)The plaintiff is a recognized Association registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The Society was formed for the purpose of promoting, encouraging and controlling the game of basketball in Tamil Nadu and to safeguard the amateur and professional spirit, governing all members, their member clubs, organizations and institutions, and promoting basketball by laying down rules and regulations. (b)Tamil Nadu Basketball Association is managed by the General Council which is the supreme body. All the District Basketball Associations are the members of the General Council. At present, all the 31 revenue districts of Tamil Nadu are having Basketball Associations and are members in the General Council. The General Council elects the office bearers, i.e. President, Secretary and Treasurer. The affairs of the Association are managed through an Executive Committee consisting of the office bearers, four vice presidents, three Joint Secretaries, Five Executive Committee Members from four zone and also the nominated members. Though the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association was started in the year 1955, there was no formal constitution. It was only in the year 1983, when A.N.Dyaneshwaran and his team were elected, basketball associations were created in all the districts of the State and during the General Council meeting in 1987, a well laid down constitution was adopted to lay down the rules and regulations for the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. The Government of Tamil Nadu allotted larger extent of land on long term lease from Corporation of Chennai for construction of an indoor stadium in 1988. (c)Tamil Nadu Basketball Association was functioning to the satisfaction of all the basketball players and it was also promoting, encouraging and controlling the game of basketball. The association was also recognized by the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu and by the Tamil Nadu Olympic Association. (d)The plaintiff association during the course of its operation was forced to suspend certain members for having committed certain grave irregularities and having found that their actions were against the rules and regulations of the Association. The association was also recognized by the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu and by the Tamil Nadu Olympic Association. (d)The plaintiff association during the course of its operation was forced to suspend certain members for having committed certain grave irregularities and having found that their actions were against the rules and regulations of the Association. Those members started a rival association in the name and style of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association and they also started to use the very same logo. Therefore, there was stalemate in the functioning of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association including the selection of the State team under various heads for the purpose of participation in the National Championship conducted by the Basketball Federation of India as well as various level tournaments in the State of Tamil Nadu. When the stalemate in the functioning of the Association was brought to the knowledge of the Basketball Federation of India, an assessment of the Association was made by the All India Federation and accordingly, an ad hoc committee was appointed under the Chairmanship of Thiru.K.Govindarajan from Karnataka and Thiru.V.Ragothaman from Pondicherry as convenor as per the communication dated 24, September, 2008. However, there was nothing indicated in the said communication about the statutory provision in the constitution which authorizes All India Federation and the Basketball Federation of India for appointment of an ad hoc committee. (e)The Secretary General of the Basketball Federation of India convened a meeting of both the rival groups on 22.01.2009 at Chennai to discuss about the various aspects regarding the administration and functioning of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. In the said meeting, it was decided to recognize the basketball clubs registered in 20082009 as clubs eligible to vote in Order to elect the office bearers of various District Associations where there are no elected District Associations and where ad hoc Associations are functioning. It was further decided that after those elections, the General Council of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association would be convened to know about which among the two groups has majority support from all the District Associations to function and administer the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. It was further decided that after those elections, the General Council of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association would be convened to know about which among the two groups has majority support from all the District Associations to function and administer the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. However, contrary to the decision taken in the meeting held on 22.01.2009, headed by the Secretary General of Basketball Federation of India, the convener of Ad hoc committee of Basketball Federation of India had issued a circular dated 02.02.2009 addressed to all the Registered clubs under the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association, informing them about the elections to be conducted for all the District Associations in the State of Tamil Nadu and with the elected representative from each district, to conduct the state election for the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association for various posts. The said circular was not in strict conformity with the decision taken in the meeting held on 22.01.2009. The same was opposed by the plaintiff, the duly constituted body to represent the members of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association through its Honorary Secretary and also requested to convene the meeting of the ad hoc committee to discuss the issue. (f) Subsequently, a meeting of the ad hoc committee was convened on 08.02.2009 at Chennai, wherein the members of both the groups were present. During the said meeting, A.N.Dyaneshwaran stressed and insisted that election should be conducted only for those District Associations where there are no elected office bearers and ad hoc committees exist. The said observation was recorded in the minutes of the proceedings dated 08.02.2009. The representatives of the rival group objected to the same and informed that they would abide by the decision of the ad hoc committee. Subsequently, A.N.Dyaneshwaran, Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association addressed a letter dated 14.02.2009 to the Convener of the Ad hoc Committee to clarify on the said issue as to whether election was going to be conducted for all the District Associations or only to those District Associations where there is no elected bodies, after consulting the issue with the General Secretary of the Basketball Federation of India. (g) While the matters stood thus, the ad hoc committee convened a meeting on 23.03.2009 at Hotel Residency, Chennai and the same was informed to the plaintiff through telephone without clarifying the objections raised by its Chairman, A.N.Dyaneshwaran. (g) While the matters stood thus, the ad hoc committee convened a meeting on 23.03.2009 at Hotel Residency, Chennai and the same was informed to the plaintiff through telephone without clarifying the objections raised by its Chairman, A.N.Dyaneshwaran. During the meeting held on 23.03.2009, a hand out was served indicating (a)eligible basketball clubs to vote; (b)names of committee members to conduct election; (c)rules and regulations for conducting election and other incidental matters. However, even during the said meeting Mr.A.N.Dyaneshwaran raised the following points :- i)The clarification sought for from BFI as per the minutes of the ad hoc committee dated 08.02.2009 regarding the point to which districts election should be conducted does not find a place and the decision to conduct election in all districts appear to be the decision of the Convener of the ad hoc committee without the approval of the Secretary General BFI by means of a resolution or proceedings. ii) When the Basketball clubs registered in 2008-09 by the regular TNBA are accepted as eligible clubs to vote, why the District Associations elected by the Clubs are not accepted and election ordered is a very valid point which has not been explained properly in legal terms. iii) the timing of election is highly improper and unsuitable. iv) when the elections are conducted for Tamil Nadu State, District Basketball Associations, keeping the Office of the Returning Officer, out side the State of Tamil Nadu requiring all District Associations to run for everything to Puducherry where the office is located is against the normal parlance. Also conducting District Election outside the district jurisdiction in various zones is also legally and ethically not correct. These arrangements will cause innumerable practical difficulties making the election a farce. v) The notification issued for conducting election of the District Association is bald without disclosing whether the existing District Association which have elected bodies are superseded, if so under what provision. The names of District Associations for which elections are ordered to be conducted and the names of District Association for which elections are not ordered with needed statutory authorization are not listed in the notification. vi) The question of election does not arise at all and it is uncalled for. The election is requested for with an ulterior motive. (h)Even though several objections were raised, only two matters were recorded in the minutes dated 23.03.2009. vi) The question of election does not arise at all and it is uncalled for. The election is requested for with an ulterior motive. (h)Even though several objections were raised, only two matters were recorded in the minutes dated 23.03.2009. The ad hoc committee has not considered any of the views expressed by the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association and was proceeding to conduct the election in a hurried manner which created a lot of suspicion about its intention and made everybody to feel whether the ad hoc committee was acting at the instance of such persons under tremendous pressure to conduct the election willy nilly. The decision of the ad hoc committee to conduct the election for all the districts of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association where there are already elected members to those associations, disregarding the objections so raised by A.N.Dyaneshwaran for conducting election for such districts was nothing but a shabby and futile attempt and as such, it requires interference by the Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for injunction restraining the revision petitioner from conducting election for the District Basketball Associations as detailed in their communication dated 23.03.2009 scheduled to be conducted from 10.04.2009. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff has also filed an application in I.A.No.4721/2009 for an Order of interlocutory injunction during the pendency of the suit. The relief as claimed in the suit as well as the interlocutory injunction were one and the same. 4. The suit was filed on 03.04.2009. On the very same day, the learned Trial Judge passed the following Order in I.A.No.4721/2009 :- "Heard. Documents No.1 to 10 perused. No bye laws available. The respondents are only ad hoc committee. They have only time to promote, look after the day to day affairs only. They do not have power to conduct the election. By the amendment, the existing office bearers which they have to continue in the office or not is in vague. As per document 7 certain power are given. But not to conduct election. Hence, prima facie case is made out. Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. Hence, ad interim injunction granted till 17.04.2009. Notice to the respondent by then. Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is to be strictly followed." 5. As per document 7 certain power are given. But not to conduct election. Hence, prima facie case is made out. Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. Hence, ad interim injunction granted till 17.04.2009. Notice to the respondent by then. Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is to be strictly followed." 5. The revision petitioner who is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.2531/2009 has filed this revision petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint on the ground of abuse of process of Court. Submissions :- 6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner/first defendant would contend thus :- a)The very suit filed by the first respondent was fraudulent and Thiru.A.D.Sendhureeswaran was incompetent to file a suit in his capacity as the Officer bearer of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association in view of the order passed by the High Court in O.A.No.999/2008 in C.S.No.882/2008. b) The first respondent has suppressed material facts in the plaint and obtained an Order playing fraud on the Court. The so called Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association by name A.N.Dyaneshwaran has participated in the meeting of the ad hoc committee and expressly agreed to the conduct of election. Therefore, the first respondent who claims to be an associate of the said A.N.Dyaneshwaran was not entitled to stall the election by way of a suit. c) The election process commenced as early as on 23.03.2009. By the time the suit was filed, ad hoc committee received all the communications and in fact, on 04.04.2009, scrutiny of nominations were also completed. It was only on 03.04.2009, the first respondent has filed the suit without any regard to the settled legal position that there should be no interference in the election process. d) The first respondent has deliberately suppressed the pendency of the suit in C.S.No.882/2008 as well as the Order of injunction passed by the High Court in September, with a view to obtain an Order of injunction. Therefore, the very suit has to be struck off on the ground of fraud and suppression of material particulars. d) The first respondent has deliberately suppressed the pendency of the suit in C.S.No.882/2008 as well as the Order of injunction passed by the High Court in September, with a view to obtain an Order of injunction. Therefore, the very suit has to be struck off on the ground of fraud and suppression of material particulars. e) The Basketball Federation of India in its meeting held on 06.01.2009, resolved to conduct election in an expeditious manner for all the District Basketball Associations and it was only for the said purpose, ad hoc committee was appointed and as such, the first respondent was not justified in filing the suit to stall the election process. 7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would contend thus :- a) The first respondent has filed a suit in C.S.No.441/2008 before the Original Side of this Court to restrain the defendants in the said suit or their men and agents from acting on their behalf and from using the name of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association and its logo and for an injunction to restrain them from interfering in any manner whatsoever including interfering with the peaceful possession of indoor basketball complex belonging to the association. b) In the said suit, an Order of interlocutory injunction was granted on 21 April, 2008 restraining the respondents in the interlocutory application, from using the name of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association and its logo. The interim Order was subsequently extended. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first respondent was not competent to institute a suit on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. c) Even though the first respondent has not disclosed the pendency of the suit in C.S.No.882/2008, in the plaint filed in O.S.No.2531/2009, they have produced a copy of the minutes of the ad hoc committee held on 23.03.2009 which would clearly throw light on the pendency of the two civil suits between the parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an act of misrepresentation by the first respondent for the purpose of obtaining interim Order from the City Civil Court, Chennai. d) The revision petition was originally filed by the members of the ad hoc committee. Subsequently, the name of Mr.Govidnaraj, member of the Executive Committee was removed from the array of petitioners and he was shown to be a respondent. d) The revision petition was originally filed by the members of the ad hoc committee. Subsequently, the name of Mr.Govidnaraj, member of the Executive Committee was removed from the array of petitioners and he was shown to be a respondent. This shows that the decision of the ad hoc committee to conduct election was not unanimous. e) The suit in O.S.No.2531/2009 involves substantial question to be decided in the matter and as such, it cannot be said that the suit was an abuse of process. f) The petitioner has a clear alternative remedy by approaching the trial Court to vacate the exparte injunction and as such, the revision petition invoking article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable. Discussion :- 8. Tamil Nadu Basketball Association represented by its Secretary Thiru D.Napoleon has filed the suit in C.S.882/ 2008 on the file of the original side of this Court against, Thiru.A.N.Dyaneshwaran, Thiru.A.D.Senthureswaran, Thiru.A.D.Sugavaneswaran and Dr.L.M.Ramakrishnan, praying for a Judgment and Decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the activities of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. In the said suit, an Order of interlocutory injunction was granted on 17.09.2008. The interim order was subsequently extended from time to time. 9. Tamil Nadu Basketball Association represented by its Secretary R.Selvarajan has filed a suit C.S.No.411/2008 against S.M.Hidayathulla, S.Arulmozhi and The Registrar of Societies, Chennai praying for a Judgment and Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from using the name or logo of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. In the said suit also, interim injunction was granted. In the meantime, Basketball Federation of India intervened in the matter and appointed ad hoc committee with Thiru.K.Govindarajan and Thiru.V.Ragothaman as members. Subsequently, Basketball Federation of India convened a meeting on 06.01.2009 and in the said meeting, the dispute prevailing in Tamil Nadu Basketball Association was discussed. In order to ensure smooth functioning of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association and to resolve the dispute, the following resolution was passed :- "RESOLVED that the appointment of the ad hoc committee by the Steering Committee of the BFI to take care of the affairs of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association is hereby ratified. The ad hoc committee is empowered to take all steps for due conduct of election in an expeditious manner for all the District Basketball Associations and the TNBA. The ad hoc committee is empowered to take all steps for due conduct of election in an expeditious manner for all the District Basketball Associations and the TNBA. To avoid all controversies, the ad hoc committee, being the neutral body, will be in complete charge of the electoral process, including appointment of returning officer and any other person or body for due conduct of elections and for overseeing the elections". 10. As a follow up action, a meeting of the ad hoc committee with representatives of both the rival group was convened and in the said meeting on 08.02.2009, Convener announced the decision to conduct election for all District Associations and State Association within two months. However, Mr.A.N.Dyaneshwaran informed the meeting that election should be conducted for the District Associations where there are no elected office bearers/ad hoc committee exists. The members of the other faction viz., Mr.Elango and Mr.Arul Mozhi expressed their desire to accept the agreement in case a decision was taken by the ad hoc committee. 11. Subsequently, another meeting was held on 23.03.2009 and in the said meeting convened by the ad hoc committee, members of both the factions were present. It was decided to conduct elections on the basis of zone with secret ballot. However, Thiru.A.N.Dyaneshwaran informed the meeting that there are two court injunctions pending insofar as the administration of Tamil Nadu Basketball Association was concerned and as such, the committee has to take a decision as to whether it was possible to conduct the election in view of the order of injunction. Mr.A.N.Dyaneshwaran also expressed his reservation about the conduct of the election in view of the announcement of the general election and desired that the committee has to get the approval of the State Election Commission. In the said meeting, both the groups accepted the nomination of Mr.V.Rahothaman as the Returning Officer. As per the scheme of election, the members of the Chennai Zone has to elect their representative on 10.04.2009 followed by Coimbatore, Madurai, Trichy on 11.04.2009, 12.04.2009 and 13.04.2009 respectively. 12. Subsequently, the Returning Officer issued notification with regard to the conduct of election. As per the said notification, nominations would be received from 27, March to 3 April, 2009 followed by scrutiny of nomination on 04 April, 2009. 12. Subsequently, the Returning Officer issued notification with regard to the conduct of election. As per the said notification, nominations would be received from 27, March to 3 April, 2009 followed by scrutiny of nomination on 04 April, 2009. Withdrawal of nominations would be accepted till 06 April, 2009 and the list of valid nominees would be published on 07 April, 2009. Polling was scheduled to be held in four places from 10 April, 2009 to 13 April, 2009. 13. It was only after the commencement of the election process, the first respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.2531/2009 before the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and obtained an Order of interim injunction in I.A.No.4721/2009 on 03.04.2009. 14. The revision petitioner on receipt of notice from the City Civil Court, straightway filed this revision petition with a prayer to reject the plaint. 15. When the civil revision petition came up for hearing on 08.04.2009, the learned Judge of this Court was pleased to pass the following Order :- "Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.S.Raman for the petitioner and Mr.M.Baskaran learned counsel for the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the election process has already started on 23. 09. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no need to stay the operation of the order challenged before the Court. After hearing both sides, this Court is granting an interim stay of operation of the order challenged till 14. 2009. The part of the polling in the election process shall go as scheduled and counting and declaration of the results will be withheld till the disposal of the civil revision petition." 16. In view of the permission granted by this Court as per Order dated 08.04.2009, election was conducted. However, no further action was taken for the purpose of counting and declaration of results in view of the order of this Court. Suppression of relevant materials :- 17. The course of conduct adopted by the Honorary Secretary of the Association clearly shows that his intention was to obtain an Order of Interim Injunction at any cost so as to stall the election process. Suppression of relevant materials :- 17. The course of conduct adopted by the Honorary Secretary of the Association clearly shows that his intention was to obtain an Order of Interim Injunction at any cost so as to stall the election process. The Order dated 17.09.2008 in O.A.No.999/2008 in C.S.No.882/2008 clearly shows that the Honorary Secretary and his father and brother along with the president of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association were restrained from interfering with in any manner and in any capacity with the activities of the Tamil Nadu Basketball Association. It was also an admitted case that as on the date on which the suit was filed before the City Civil Court, the said order of injunction was very much in operation. 18. The first Respondent being aware of the Order of injunction passed as early as on 17.09.2008 should have disclosed the said fact in the plaint in O.S.No.2531/2009. The explanation given by the learned Senior Counsel for the first Respondent that the resolution passed in the meetings held on 08.02.2009 and 23.03.2009 were exhibited as documents along with the plaint is clearly an afterthought. The first Respondent was fully aware that while considering the application for interlocutory injunction, the trial Court would be reading mainly the pleadings and therefore, it was only a clever device invented by the first Respondent to obtain an interlocutory Order. In case his intention was to obtain an Order of injunction on merits, he should have divulged the entire factual matrix in the plaint as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the injunction application. The suit filed by the group led by the first respondent and the suit filed against him were omitted to be disclosed in the plaint in O.S.No.2531/2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was an innocent omission and the intention was not to suppress material facts. 19. In the letter dated 10 January 2008, addressed to the revision petitioner, the first respondent has stated about the pending litigation thus :- "There are two injunction orders of Honourable High Court of Madras, pending one in our favour and another one in favour of the other group". 20. However, when it comes to filing civil suit, he has conveniently omitted to mention the operation of the injunction order in the plaint. 21. 20. However, when it comes to filing civil suit, he has conveniently omitted to mention the operation of the injunction order in the plaint. 21. The learned Trial Judge while granting an Order of injunction was expected to consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience as well as irreparable injury. The Order of injunction granted by the learned Trial Judge on 03.04.2009 does not contain reasons much less justifiable reasons. 22. The observation of the learned Trial Judge in the Order dated 03.04.2009 that the Court has perused the documents 1 to 10 is absolutely incorrect. In case the trial Judge has considered the documents 1 to 10, it would have been clear to the learned Judge that there were two proceedings pending between the parties and there was a subsisting Order of injunction granted against the first respondent and another in his favour. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had very mechanically passed the Order of injunction by reproducing the ingredients of the provision. Guiding factors :- 23. In Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCC 282 , at page 294, the Supreme Court underlined the factors to be taken into consideration by the Court at the time of granting an order of temporary injunction thus:- 30. The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff: (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff’s rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff’s rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant’s rights or likely infringement of the defendant’s rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands. 24.The Supreme Court in M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan, 2006 (9) SCALE 275 = (2006) 8 SCC 367 explained as to what is meant by prima facie case thus:- "18. 24.The Supreme Court in M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan, 2006 (9) SCALE 275 = (2006) 8 SCC 367 explained as to what is meant by prima facie case thus:- "18. While considering an application for injunction, it is well settled, the courts would pass an order thereupon having regard to: (i) Prima facie case (ii) Balance of convenience (iii) Irreparable injury. 19. A finding on “prima facie case” would be a finding of fact. However, while arriving at such a finding of fact, the court not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out but also other factors requisite for grant of injunction exist." 25.The provisions as contained in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC gives authority to the Trial Court to reject the plaint at the threshold in case the Court was convinced on a perusal of the plaint that there was nothing to be tried in the suit as it was inherently impossible to proceed with the suit. Supervisory Jurisdiction :- 26. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without approaching the trial Court. 27. In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan , (2000) 7 SCC 695 = AIR 2000 SC 3032 , the issue before the Supreme Court was as to whether the High Court was justified in invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when there was an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the party should be directed to avail themselves of the statutory remedies before approaching the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observation reads thus:- "20.Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies. The relevant observation reads thus:- "20.Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court it is a well-recognised principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy." 28.The Honble Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 has enumerated the scope and ambit of exercise of power by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thus :- "6.The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to. 7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. 7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand in AIR para 12 has stated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and, not for correcting mere errors. Reference also has been made in this regard to the case Waryam Singh v. Amarnath. This Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte has observed that the power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned order." 29. The Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup and ors. [2009 (2) Scale 765], observed thus:- "33.The High Court moreover was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While exercising the said jurisdiction, the High Court had a limited role to play. It is not the function of the High Court while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction to enter into the disputed question of fact." 30. In Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and ors. [2009 (3) LW 309], the Supreme Court in the context of exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India observed thus :- "28.Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep Tribunals and Courts within the bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both Civil and Criminal Courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law". Effective remedy :- 31. Under Article 227, orders of both Civil and Criminal Courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law". Effective remedy :- 31. The remedy as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is an effective remedy to axe the civil suits at the threshold in case of satisfying the ingredients of the said provision. The trial Court is given the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the fate of a litigation in its initial stage itself. Unless the trial Court was apprised of the inherent defects in the suit, it would be impossible for the Court to consider the maintainability of the suit. The jurisdiction of the trial Court cannot be bypassed in a routine manner. 32. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is a discretionary jurisdiction. The primary object of this provision is to keep the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the limits of the authority. This power cannot be exercised like an appellate jurisdiction. It is not permissible to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction in matters wherein the trial Court was not having the opportunity to examine the issues. The superintendence of the High Court over the Courts and tribunals cannot be construed to be an original jurisdiction in the High Court to entertain matters which should be considered ordinarily by the Civil Court. Normally, parties should be directed to pursue the alternative remedy available to them instead of availing the constitutional remedy. However, in extraordinary circumstances, when it was demonstrated that there was flagrant violation of the principles of law or justice, or the Court was accused of dereliction of duty of grave nature parties could invoke this jurisdiction. The extraordinary remedy would be losing its significance in case the jurisdiction was exercised even in ordinary circumstances. 33. By approaching this Court with a revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint, the trial Court is deprived of the opportunity to test the plaint in exercise of its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. While registering a suit the Court was only concerned with the compliance of the provisions relating to institution of suit. Because of clever drafting, it would be difficult for the trial Court to find out the inherent defects in the plaint. While registering a suit the Court was only concerned with the compliance of the provisions relating to institution of suit. Because of clever drafting, it would be difficult for the trial Court to find out the inherent defects in the plaint. The provision regarding rejection of plaint is intended to find out such defects. The jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 is available to the Civil Court at any stage of the litigation. Therefore, the Superior Courts should exercise the jurisdiction only sparingly and not for mere asking. The jurisdiction is conferred on the trial Court to reject the plaint and as such, by passing the remedy should be in exceptional circumstances only. 34. Therefore, I do not find any extraordinary circumstances in the matter to entertain the request to reject the plaint without approaching the Trial Court. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 35. The prayer in the suit is for injunction to restrain the conduct of election by the ad hoc committee. The prayer in the interlocutory application is also the same. The learned Trial Judge has granted an order of interlocutory injunction on 03.04.2009. However, this Court as per Order dated 08.04.2009 granted an Order of interim stay of the Order, and permitted the conduct of election and the ad hoc committee was restrained from counting and declaring results till the disposal of the revision petition. In case this Court permits the revision petitioner to declare the results after counting, the very suit would become infructuous and it would have the effect of allowing the application filed by the petitioner to reject the plaint. I have indicated in the earlier paragraphs that the petitioner should have approached the Trial Court with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Therefore, there is no question of rejecting the plaint indirectly by permitting declaration of results. It is true that the first respondent has not divulged the true state of affairs in the plaint as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the application for interlocutory application. This Court by way of granting an equitable order on 08.04.2009, protected the interest of the petitioner also. Jurisdiction given to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to take over the function of the Trial Court. This Court by way of granting an equitable order on 08.04.2009, protected the interest of the petitioner also. Jurisdiction given to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to take over the function of the Trial Court. Therefore, the further course of action in the matter has to be taken only by the Trial Court. Direction :- 36. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Trial Court for appropriate reliefs. The Trial Court is also directed to dispose of the interlocutory application on merits and as per law and in the light of the subsequently events, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 37. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1/2009 is closed.