Judgment :- 1. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the judgment and decree, dated 12.2.2008 made in O.S. No. 414 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, this Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner is a third party to the said suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the other respondents, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from permitting any one to use water tank in Thirugnana Sambandar Street, TVS Nagar, Padi for performing ceremonies and obsequies of the dead persons. 4. It is seen that the defendants in the suit, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein remained absent and were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed by the Court below in favour of the first respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the members of the revision petitioner, Thiruvalleewarar Nagar Nala Kazhagam, Thirumangalam are using the suit property for several years by conducting ceremonies and obsequies of their relatives death and there is a clear averments in the plaint with regard to the user of the property by several persons, however, without impleading the members of the petitioner sangam, a collusive suit was filed by the first respondent and an ex parte decree was obtained by the first respondent. Being third party, the petitioner could not file a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C before the Court below to set aside the ex parte decree , hence, preferred this Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to prevent the abuse of process of law and the Court by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that the decree passed by the Court below cannot be challenged, by way of revision, since it requires evidence. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, this Court is of the view that it is a mixed question of law and facts, for which adducing oral and documentary evidence is needed to decide the alleged rights claimed by the parties. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, this Court is of the view that it is a mixed question of law and facts, for which adducing oral and documentary evidence is needed to decide the alleged rights claimed by the parties. Though the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, he could have obtained leave from the Court below, stating the facts and also by producing supporting materials, seeking an order to set aside the ex parte decree by way of impleading the petitioner. After obtaining leave, he could have filed petition under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex parte decree or the petitioner Association or any aggrieved party could have filed independent suit, challenging the decree, on the grounds raised herein. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the Court is of the view that the revision petitioners cannot seek the remedy directly in the revision, since it needs supporting materials, as admissible evidence to decide the issues involved. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contention relied on the following decisions: 1. Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited v. R. Srinivasan, 2010 (4) CTC 690 : (2010) 6 MLJ 51 2. J. Sivasubramanian and Another v. N. Govindarajan and Another (1998) 1 MLJ 643 : 1998-1-LW 372. 8. In J. Sivasubramanian and Another v. N. Govindarajan and Another (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court held that if a collusive decree is obtained by suppressing facts and without impleading necessary parties and the same is apparent, the aggrieved party can invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the relief in favour of the petitioners. In the judgment, this Court has held as follows at p. 645 of MLJ: “ 10. I would not have thought of interfering with the decree of the lower Court, but for the admission of the respondents themselves that petitioners are in possession, and, therefore, defendant (second respondent) wanted recovery of possession of the properties from them. That is clear from the notice issued by the second respondent on 17.4.1997. I would not have thought of interfering with the decree of the lower Court, but for the admission of the respondents themselves that petitioners are in possession, and, therefore, defendant (second respondent) wanted recovery of possession of the properties from them. That is clear from the notice issued by the second respondent on 17.4.1997. After giving details of all the properties which are the subject matter of the suit, in para 6, it is said: “ My client states that without any authority or lawful grant from my client you are illegally occupying the above said lands including the said two brick industries. You are in possession of the above said properties by fraud upon my clients in connivance with the said my power of attorney. Though my client demanded you to hand over possession to him, you have failed and neglected to oblige my client ‘ s demands with an ulterior motive to grab the above said properties for which you have no manner of right. ” 9. In the instant case, though the first respondent/plaintiff has averred certain allegations, admittedly, no other private person was arrayed as defendants. However, the petitioner/third party has not produced any supporting materials to show that they have any customary right in the property, as alleged in this Revision. In the grounds of revision, the petitioner/third party has stated that the first respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the schedule mentioned suit property. According to the revision petitioner, the property belongs to Thiruvalleeswarar Devasthanam Temple under the control of H.R. & C.E., Department, however, the said contention is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff. 10. It is a mixed question of law and facts and the same has to be decided only by a Civil Court, based on evidence. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/third party can challenge the decree, by way of filing independent suit, as per procedure known to law. When efficacious alternative remedy is available, filing revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without establishing the rights claimed by way of acceptable evidence would not be maintainable. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/third party can challenge the decree, by way of filing independent suit, as per procedure known to law. When efficacious alternative remedy is available, filing revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without establishing the rights claimed by way of acceptable evidence would not be maintainable. 11. It is a well settled proposition of law that no one is entitled to seek remedy by way of preferring revision either under Section 115 C.P.C or Article 227 of the Constitution, when efficacious legal remedy is available before the trial Court or appeal remedy is available. In the is instant case, though the petitioner sangam was not arrayed as a party to the suit, an ex parte decree was obtained by the first respondent/plaintiff, the Court below cannot be construed as ‘ functus officio ‘ to set aside the ex parte decree, under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner, being a third party to the suit, having aggrieved by the ex parte decree could have filed a petition seeking leave from the Court below to file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree, by way of impleading the petitioner. 12. As an aggrieved third party, the petitioner sangam is entitled to file independent suit, challenging the decree by impleading necessary parties. Similarly, if the rights of the petitioner was already established by way of legal adjudication or by way of any public document or if there is any specific admission by the party, who got the decree behind the back of the petitioner/third party, that can be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution, in order to meet the ends of justice. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner/third party has to establish the claim, by way of adducing evidence, in such circumstances, the Revisional Court cannot allow the revision, as prayed for without evidence. 14. However, it is made clear that the ex parte decree obtained by the first respondent against the respondents 2 and 3 would not bind the members of the petitioner sangam and others, since they were not arrayed as defendants in the suit, though specific averments were made by the first respondent herein in the suit against them. 15. 14. However, it is made clear that the ex parte decree obtained by the first respondent against the respondents 2 and 3 would not bind the members of the petitioner sangam and others, since they were not arrayed as defendants in the suit, though specific averments were made by the first respondent herein in the suit against them. 15. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the revision is liable to be dismissed, however, it is open to the petitioner/third party to file appropriate Civil Suit before the competent Court, having jurisdiction, challenging the ex parte decree, according to law, if so advised. 16. With the above observations, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.