Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1966 (MAD)

A. P. Munusamy Nadar v. S. V. Ruban Inbaraj

2010-04-26

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the plaint in O.S.No.804 of 2009, pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, and to strike off the same. 2. The petitioner had stated that the respondent has filed the suit, in O.S.No.804 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur, praying for a decree to declare the letter issued by the petitioner, who is the defendant in the said suit, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, and for a consequential injunction restraining the petitioner and the others from, in any manner, removing the respondent from the post of General Secretary of Pallavaram Vattara Nadar Ikiya Sangam, by conducting a general body meeting, either on 13.12.2009, or on any other date, till the year, 2011, except by the due process of law and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and others, in any manner, preventing the respondent from acting as a general secretary of the said Sangam. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the entertaining of the suit by the learned District Munsif, is erroneous and contrary to law, as it has been filed against a registered society, registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1965. The District Munsif Court, Alandur, has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. It is only the City Civil Court, Chennai, and the District Court, in other places which would have the jurisdiction in entertain the suit. Further, the Court below ought to have rejected the plaint, as it has been filed to declare a notice, dated 3.12.2009, calling for the general body meeting of the society stating that it is an abuse of the process of law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further stated that the trial Court had erred in not considering the fact that the election had been conducted, as per the rules and regulations and the Secretary of the Society had also been selected through a valid resolution. Without challenging the same, it would not be open to the respondent to file a suit, praying for a declaration to declare the letter issued by the petitioner, on 3.12.2009, for conducting a general body meeting of the members of the Society. 5. Without challenging the same, it would not be open to the respondent to file a suit, praying for a declaration to declare the letter issued by the petitioner, on 3.12.2009, for conducting a general body meeting of the members of the Society. 5. The learned counsel had also stated that it is not open to the respondent to challenge the proceedings, after the election had been conducted. He had also stated that no order of injunction can be granted by the trial Court after the process of election had been completed, as in the present case. He had also stated that the trial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore, it should be summarily rejected, with costs. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the Civil Revision Petition preferred, under Article 227 of the constitution, is not maintainable, as against the order of injunction passed by the trial Court, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The petitioner had straight away invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court without exhausting the alternative and efficacious appeal remedy before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram, under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, in limini. Further, the prayer in the Civil Revision Petition, requesting this Court to reject the plaint filed in the suit, in O.S.No.804 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as the petitioner has not been in a position to show that Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, would apply to the case in hand. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 7.1. In KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR, 2006 (3) CTC 185, the Supreme Court had held that "the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. In KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR, 2006 (3) CTC 185, the Supreme Court had held that "the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. But when a Court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The failure to render the necessary findings to support its order would also be a jurisdictional error liable to correction. Here the jurisdiction to grant an interim mandatory injunction could be exercised on entering a finding that on the day the order for maintaining the status quo was passed, he was in fact dispossessed. The interim direction to maintain status quo was an ex parte order. From the order of the Additional District Court it is not possible to come to the conclusion that on a proper advertence to the relevant materials, prima facie clear findings had been rendered by that Court on these aspects. The prima facie infirmities attached to the letter said to create the tenancy cannot also be ignored, since that transaction is the foundation of the plaintiffs claim of possession." 7.2. In RENUKA DEVI Vs. D.MANOHARAN, 1997 (III) CTC 567 ), it has been held that the High Court, while exercising power, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is duty bound to redress the grievance of the parties to the proceedings to a maximum possible extent. If an interim order of injunction had been obtained by playing fraud on Court, based on forged documents, the suit can be directed to be struck off from the files of the trial Court and exemplary costs can also be imposed on the party concerned. 7.3. In SUGUNA POULTRY FARM LIMITED Vs. V.ARUL MARIAMMAN TEXTILES LIMITED, 2004 (4) CTC 197 , this Court had held that if a plaintiff had filed the suit with the ulterior motive of obtaining orders behind the back of the parties, who would be interested in the suit property concerned, without impleading them, in a Court which lacks the territorial jurisdiction, striking out the suit is the proper relief. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions cite above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as sought for by the petitioner, in the present civil revision petition. 9. Even though it was open to the petitioner to challenge the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court, in O.S.No.804 of 2009, he had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, without exhausting the alternative remedy available to him under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 10. The request to reject the suit, in O.S.No.804 of 2009, pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur, by striking off the plaint, cannot be granted, at this stage, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the necessary ingredients, prescribed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are existing in the present case. Further, the issue regarding jurisdiction could be a mixed question of fact and law and therefore, such an issue is to be decided by the trial Court, based on evidence. However, it is open to the petitioner to raise the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit before the concerned trial Court, in accordance with law. As such, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.