Judgment :- 1. This Revision has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed by the by the Principal District Court, Villupuram in I.A. No. 279 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2 of 2008 dated 18.4.2009. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram. The suit was filed against the respondents under Section 92 C.P.C. praying the Court to frame a Scheme for the Management and Administration of the suit temple and its property. Originally, I.A. No. 20 of 2008 was filed with the suit under Section 92 C.P.C for leave to institute the suit, on 24.1.2008 and the said petition was allowed by grant of leave to institute the suit. The respondents/defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 279 of 2008 under Section 92 read with Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of C.P.C. In this petition, the respondents have prayed for two reliefs, namely, to revoke the permission granted in I.A. No. 20 of 2008 and also to reject the 3 The following are the grounds raised in the affidavit filed by the respondents: “ 1. The respondents/defendants are not personally interested in the management and the administration of the temple and their interest is not real and substantive and that there is neither necessity nor any basis for framing a scheme as admittedly we have been managing the temple for the past four generations and for well over a decade and as such it is outside the scope of Section 92 C.P.C. 2. The suit has been filed only to vindicate their personal rights and interest as their attempts to exercise the powers emanating under the trust namely “ Baghavan Sri Appandainathar (Parsuvanathar) Jinalaya Management Trust ” had been frustrated and that we had filed the suit in O.A. No. 133 of 2007 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram for injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the temple. 3. Above all, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C. And it is only a designated Court by the Government of Tamilnadu alone (i.e. the Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram) is entitled to entertain the suit. 3. Above all, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C. And it is only a designated Court by the Government of Tamilnadu alone (i.e. the Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram) is entitled to entertain the suit. Hence, this Court is not competent to entertain the suit and grant leave as the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted by the notification of the State Government vesting with the Principal Sub Judge of that locality having jurisdiction over the matter. 4. The respondents have failed to array and implead the temple as a party to the suit. ” The following are the allegations contained in the counter filed by the present petitioners: “ 1. The petition filed by the petitioners is most frivolous. The application as framed is not maintainable. The suit is for settling a Scheme for management and administrative of suit temple and its properties. It is a public temple where the Jain community people, as of right, are entitled to offer worship. The defendants who are petitioners herein took upon themselves the management of temple and have not shown any interest in keeping the temple in good disrepair. They had their eyes only on the “ Hundial ”collection. Representation by the worshippers fell into deaf ears. The respondent sets out in detail the various irregularities committed by the petitioners in paragraph 6 of the plaint. They crave the leave of the Court to refer to the same as part and parcel of this counter. Finding that petitioners are not likely to mend themselves, the suit is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the Jain community people living in Villupuram Taluk, Tindivanam, Gingee and Vanthavasi. For granting leave to sue under Section 92 , the Court has to satisfy prima facie from the allegations made in the plaint whether leave is to be granted or not and after considering the allegations and the documents filed along with the plaint, the Court has granted the leave. The matter ends there. If the petitioners have a defence, it is open to them to agitate and contest the matter. This is not the stage to decide the merits of the case and the entire affidavit filed by the is petitioner in support of the application is in the nature of a written statement. The matter ends there. If the petitioners have a defence, it is open to them to agitate and contest the matter. This is not the stage to decide the merits of the case and the entire affidavit filed by the is petitioner in support of the application is in the nature of a written statement. Under those circumstances, the petitioners cannot request the Court to revoke the permission. The other objection that the Court has no jurisdiction is equally meritless. In a recent judgment, the High Court has relied that the Principal Court of original jurisdiction which is the District Court can entertain the suit filed under Section 92 C.P.C. This respondent submits that the petitioners cannot maintain this application. With regard to the prayer to reject the plaint, nothing is made out to attract the provisions of, Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. In short, the application deserves to be dismissed. ” 5. On behalf of the petitioners, Exhibit A-1 to A-28 were marked and on the side of the respondents Exhibit R-1 to R-3 were marked in the enquiry before the trial Court. On hearing the arguments of both sides and after perusal of the exhibits, the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, has partly allowed the application, revoking the leave granted by the Court in I.A. No. 20 of 2008 under Section 92 C.P.C. and dismissing the petition with reference to the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 6. The petitioners who are the plaintiffs in the suit have filed the revision challenging the order of the Court below, revoking the permission already granted to them. The respondents have not preferred any appeal or revision against refused portion of the petition. 7. Learned senior counsel Ms. Hema Sampath, would contend that there is no ground for revoking the leave, which was already granted by the Court without ascertaining the prima facie evidence on record, that non-impleading of Trust cannot constitute a ground for cancelling the permission already granted which can be made at any stage of the suit and that revision is maintainable, even if no appeal was preferred against the order of the Court below. 8. Contending on the other side of the coin, Mr. 8. Contending on the other side of the coin, Mr. R. Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present revision is not at all maintainable since the appeal remedy is very much available to the petitioners from the order passed by the Court below and that when the Trust is not a party to the suit, there is no wrong on the part of the trial Court to cancel the permission already granted under Section 92 C.P.C. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of her contention would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Southern and Rajamami Transport Private Limited, rep. by its Directior V.R. Venkataswamy, No. 27, Goods Shed Road, Madurai-625 001 and 33 Others v. 1. R. Srinivasam 2. Estate of B.V. Govindarajulu Naidu, rep. by its Intermeddler, G. Sanjeevi Rajan 3. R. Vasantha R.V.R. Narasimhalu (2010) 6 MLJ 51 : 2010 (4) CTC 690 wherein the learned Judge has observed that even the alternative remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is not a bar to invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and in certain circumstances, this Court can exercise its power of superintendence over the Subordinate Court on the following grounds: a) to prevent abuse of process of law b) to prevent miscarriage of justice c) to prevent grave justice d) to establish both administrative as well as judicial power of High Court. 10. After referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court on this subject, the learned Judge finally reached the conclusion, on the facts of the case. In the said case, in an agreement for sale, the revision petitioners had no connection. The revision petitioners 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 are no way in connected with the alleged Sale Agreement and it has been found that inspite of lack of binding nature upon them, they have been unnecessarily dragged on to a judicial proceeding by way of filing Original Suit before the trial Court and it is found as the case of manifest miscarriage of justice and the grave injustice caused to the Revision petitioners. This Court has to see whether such circumstances are prevailing in the present case. 11. This Court has to see whether such circumstances are prevailing in the present case. 11. On the petitioners ‘ side, two more decisions were also cited, which in the opinion of this Court are not germane to the point. The citations are as follows: 1) C.R. Neelakantan and Another v. Saidapet Annadhana SamajamAIR 1967 Madras 303 2) R.N. Selvam Mudaliar and Others v. P.A. Raju Mudaliar and AnotherAIR 1953 Madras 816 : (1952) 2 MLJ 653. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R. Balakrishnan, drew my attention to the following decisions of this Court: 1) Raju Pillai and four Others v. V.P. Paramasivam and seven Others 1995 (1) L.W. 518 : (1995) 1 MLJ 417 2) G.R. Govindarajuly and Sons Charities, Coimbatore and two Others v. R. Sethurao and Twelve Others(1998) 3 SCC 554 : 1998 (2) CTC 65 3) Governing Council of American College, A Registered Society, represented by its Secretary/Principal, Office-American College Campus, Tallakulam, Madurai-2 2. C. Premkumar Immanuel, Working as Lecturer in the Department of R.P.S. American Collee, Situated Inside American College Campus, Madurai-2 v. Dr. M. Devamani Christober, working as bursar of American College, Office situated at American College, Madurai (2010) 6 MLJ 172 : 2010 (3) CTC 604 If the party is aggrieved at the decision of the Court, which is passed under Section 92 C.P.C, the remedy open to him is to prefer appeal before the Appellate Court and the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. As far as this contention is concerned, Section 104 (ffa) C.P.C. is a specific provision indicating availability of the appeal remedy to the aggrieved party from the order passed in the petition filed under Section 91 and 92 C.P.C. The said Section reads as follows: “ Section 104 . Orders from which appeal like 1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders: “ ((a) to (f) repealed by the , 10 of 1940) ((ff) an order under Section 35-A;) (ffa) an order under Section 91 or Section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in Section 91 or Section 92 , as the case may be. ” 13. ” 13. The aforesaid provision enables filing of appeal from the order of refusal to grant relief to institute the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. In the present case, at the outset, sanction was granted to initiate the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. Subsequently, at the behest of defendants, leave granted already was revoked by the Court. There is no specific provision in the Code for preferring appeal from the order passed in the application for revoking the leave. However, when the Court revokes the leave granted, it would tantamount to refusal to grant leave. 14. In Raju Pillai and four Others v. V.P. Paramasivam and seven Others (supra), this Court, while dealing with the ambit of Section 115 C.P.C, has held that revision against order granting permission is not maintainable as it is not a judicial or quasi judicial function discharged by the Court while the rights of the parties are not affected. But, the position in the present case is otherwise. Here it is the case of refusal to grant leave. The revision has not been filed under Section 115 C.P.C. 15. In G.R. Govindarajulu and Sons Charities, Coimbatore and two Others v. R. Sethurao and Twelve Others (supra) this Court has taken a similar view as decided in Raju Pillai and four Others v. V.P. Paramasivam and seven Others (supra), case. 16. In the decision in 1. The Governing Council of American College, A Registered Society, represented by its Secretary/Principal, Office-American College Campus, Tallakulam, Madurai-2 2. C. Premkumar Immanuel, Working as Lecturer in the Department of R.P.S. American Collee, Situated Inside American College Campus, Madurai-2 v. Dr. M. Devamani Christober, working as bursar of American College, Office situated at American College, Madurai (supra), R.S. RAMANATHAN, J has followed the view taken by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram and Others AIR 2003 SC 3044 : (2003) 6 SCC 675 : (2003) 3 MLJ 60 : 2003 (4) CTC 176, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 can be invoked when subordinate Court assumed the jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or exercising the jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave justice has occasioned thereby. 17. 17. The following are the principles laid down in the case of Southern and Rajamami Transport Private Limited, rep. by its Directior V.R. Venkataswamy, No. 27, Goods Shed Road, Madurai-625 001 and 33 Others v. 1. R. Srinivasam 2. Estate of B.V. Govindarajulu Naidu, rep. by its Intermeddler, G. Sanjeevi Rajan 3. R. Vasantha R.V.R. Narasimhalu (supra) case above at p. 57 of MLJ: “ 24. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram and Others AIR 2003 SC 3044 : (2003) 6 SCC 675 , the Honourable Apex Court has held in paragraph 22 that “ Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power or superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by Clauses (2) and (2) of Article 227 with: which we are not concerned here. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is administrative as well as judicial and incapable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the way of justice and removing any obstacle therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certain jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar. ” 18. In the case of The Governing Council of American College, A Registered Society, represented by its Secretary/Principal, Office-American College Campus, Tallakulam, Madurai-2 C. Premkumar Immanuel, Working as Lecturer in the Department of R.P.S. American Collee, Situated Inside American College Campus, Madurai-2 v. Dr. M. Devamani Christober, working as bursar of American College, Office situated at American College, Madurai (supra), the learned Judge by referring and following the other Supreme Court decisions, made the following observations at p. 177 of MLJ: “ 15. In the judgment reported in the case of Mohd. Tunus v. Mohd. M. Devamani Christober, working as bursar of American College, Office situated at American College, Madurai (supra), the learned Judge by referring and following the other Supreme Court decisions, made the following observations at p. 177 of MLJ: “ 15. In the judgment reported in the case of Mohd. Tunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim AIR 1984 SC 38 : (1983) 4 SCC 566 , the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: “ A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 . The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited “ to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority ” and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 , the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision. ” 16. It has been held in the judgment in the case of B. Shyamkumar v. Francies George, 2009 (4) CTC 750 : (2009) 7 MJ 835, that at p. 842 of MLJ: “ 30. There is no second opinion that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not for the purpose of correcting a mere question of fact. The jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction to set right all kinds of errors committed by the Subordinate Courts. However, when the Trial Court misconstrued a document and arrived at a perverse conclusion, it would be open to this Court to correct such errors, as it would amount to jurisdictional error. 23. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court has held in the judgment in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan AIR 2000 SC 3032 : 2000 (4) CTC 358 : (2001) 1 MLJ 75, that at p. 79 of MLJ “ 18. Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of when the party had two other alternative remedies. Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of 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. Learned single Judge need not have entertained the Revision Petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as it may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the Revision Petition ” . 19. From the above decisions, it would emerge that, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the order of the trial Court, which has gone into the contentious question of facts, merits and demerits of the case, there would be no scope for the High Court to re-appreciate the merits as to be done by the appellate Court. In short, the High Court is not expected to discharge the function which the appellate Court is expected to perform. 20. As far as the facts of the present case is concerned, there is no materiel to show that the Court which passed the order had no jurisdiction or exercised jurisdiction which is not conferred on it and there is no abuse of process of law. In these circumstances, ignoring Section 104 (ffa) C.P.C., without preferring an appeal, filing the revision is not maintainable. The proper course available to the petitioner is to prefer an appeal in accordance with law. In such view of this matter, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below, which is confirmed. The revision is devoid of merits. 21. In fine, the revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.