JUDGMENT : (Basant Balaji, J.) This Original Petition is filed by Tug of War Federation of India, represented by its Secretary, aggrieved by Ext.P4 injunction order passed in I.A.No.9 of 2024 in O.S.No.836 of 2024, whereby the learned Munsiff had restrained the respondents therein and their men by an order of temporary injunction from conducting any type of championships in the sports discipline tug of war in Kerala until further orders. 2. The brief case put forward by the petitioner is that a suit was filed as O.S. No.836 of 2024 for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants Nos.1 to 3 from conducting Tug of War championship at the state and district level in Kerala and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from using the name ‘KERALA’ along with the name of their association and for other reliefs. In the original suit, there were only 5 defendants. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed as I.A.No.2 of 2024 and the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P2 order in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.836 of 2024 on 8.8.2024 restraining respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the suit by way of temporary injunction from conducting championship in any form in the sports discipline ‘Tug of War’ and also further restraining them from using the name of the petitioner association in the matter of activities related to sports discipline ‘Tug of War’ until further orders. 3. On 30.11.24, I.A.No.9 of 2024 was filed for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from conducting any type of championship in the sports discipline ‘Tug of War’ in Kerala till the disposal of the Original Suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.9 of 2024, the cause for filing the said application is because of Ext.P5 and P6. In the said I.A., 3 other respondents are made parties. The court below passed Ext.P4 injunction order which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 4. Ext.Nos.R1(m) and R1(n) are produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2024. Ext.R1(m) is a true copy of the communication dated 14.12.24, in which the Kerala Sports Council appointed an observer to conduct the Kerala State 31st senior men's and mixed tug-of-war championship. The championship was conducted on 15.12.24, and he also produced the results along with the report. 5. 4. Ext.Nos.R1(m) and R1(n) are produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2024. Ext.R1(m) is a true copy of the communication dated 14.12.24, in which the Kerala Sports Council appointed an observer to conduct the Kerala State 31st senior men's and mixed tug-of-war championship. The championship was conducted on 15.12.24, and he also produced the results along with the report. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent, wherein a contention is raised that the present original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the CPC. It is also contended that the Original Petition is filed, making only the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 5 as parties, and respondents 6 and 8 in I.A.No.9 of 2024 have been purposefully omitted to be made as party respondents. The petitioner has no role in conducting state or district championships. 6. In the State of Kerala, the provisions of the Kerala Sports Act, 2000, (for short ‘the Act, 2000’) and the Kerala Sports Rules, 2008 (for short ‘the Rules, 2000’) govern the sports. Under section 31 of the Act, 2000, there can be only one association in a State in one sports discipline. Rule 56 of the Rules, 2000, mandates that the Organisation shall be registered under the provisions of Travancore- Cochin (Literary, Scientific and Charitable) Societies Registration Act of 1995. A further stipulation is that the State and District Secretary of all sports associations shall be a sportsman who has participated in the State and District level championships. Chapter IX Clause 32 of the Grant-in-Aid Regulations and Rule 56 of the Rules 2008 mandates that the selection of players shall be conducted by a committee of experts appointed by the Organization along with the observer appointed by the Kerala Sports Council. The 1st Respondent Association was formed in 1999 and has been conducting district and state championships. Ext.R1(a) is the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies. It is also affiliated with the Federation and is recognised by the Kerala Sports Council. The 1st respondent is the only association in the State of Kerala authorised to conduct District and State tug-of-war championships. 7. Ext.R1(a) is the registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies. It is also affiliated with the Federation and is recognised by the Kerala Sports Council. The 1st respondent is the only association in the State of Kerala authorised to conduct District and State tug-of-war championships. 7. When the petitioner herein took steps to cancel the affiliation given to the 1st respondent, W.P.(C) Nos.32885 of 2023 and 26299 of 2024, were filed, and the same are pending for consideration before this court. When a parallel Association was formed, the 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.836 of 2024. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and he filed a report after the site inspection as Ext.R1(e). At this juncture, Ext.P6 circular was issued informing that the Kerala State Tug of War Championships will be held from 7.12.2024 to 9.12.2024 in Alappuzha. Immediately, I.A.No.8 of 2024 was filed to advance the hearing of the suit and I.A.No.9 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction. The learned Munsiff, after finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, granted a temporary injunction order. I.A.No.10 of 2024 was filed on the very same day seeking impleadment of additional respondents Nos.6 to 8, and notice was ordered by the court. As ordered by the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff has complied with the service of notice under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The plaintiff also produced Ext.R1(g) track consignment in response to the summons issued by the Court to the 8th respondent, wherein the registered letter was delivered to the addressee on 6.12.2024 itself. It is after receipt of the said letter that on the very next day, the present Original Petition is filed without filing any petition under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC or an appeal as contemplated under Order 43 Rule 1(r). Therefore, prayed that the present O.P.(C) may be dismissed with costs. 8. Heard the counsel, Shri.Sumeet Singh for the petitioner, Shri.R.Renjith and Shri.Santhan V Nair for the 1st respondent, Shri.T G Sunil (Perumbavoor) for the 2nd respondent and Shri.Syam K. P. for the 3rd respondent. 9. Therefore, prayed that the present O.P.(C) may be dismissed with costs. 8. Heard the counsel, Shri.Sumeet Singh for the petitioner, Shri.R.Renjith and Shri.Santhan V Nair for the 1st respondent, Shri.T G Sunil (Perumbavoor) for the 2nd respondent and Shri.Syam K. P. for the 3rd respondent. 9. The counsel for the petitioner argued that in the suit, there were originally 3 party defendants and, after having obtained a temporary injunction, the plaintiff therein filed I.A. No.9 of 2024, making 3 others also counter petitioners/defendants, without making them a party in the suit and obtained ex parte injunction order. The Secretary of Tug of War Federation of India is arrayed as the 8th counter petitioner, and therefore, injunction order granted by this court in Ext.P4 restrained the petitioner herein. Thus, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the said injunction order, particularly, when the petitioner is not made as a party in the suit as well as in the injunction application. In such circumstances, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach this court as the Championships were scheduled to be conducted from 7.12.2024 to 9.12.24. The counsel further argued that the application for injunction was filed on 30.11.2024, whereas the Championships were to be conducted from 7.12.2024 to 9.12.2024. The court below ought to have issued notice to the additional respondents before passing Ext.P4, as there was a clear 7- days gap between the date of filing of the application and the starting of the Championship. He argued that under Order 1 Rule 4 CPC, where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if the court thinks fit, on the original defendant. The 1st respondent herein, with fraudulent intention, did not amend the plaint, making neither the petitioner nor the counter petitioners 6 to 8 in I.A.No.9 of 2024, as parties. 10. The 1st respondent herein, with fraudulent intention, did not amend the plaint, making neither the petitioner nor the counter petitioners 6 to 8 in I.A.No.9 of 2024, as parties. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the apex court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [ (2001) 8 SCC 97 ] and contended that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is vested with the powers to set aside or ignore the finding of fact of inferior court or tribunal if there is no evidence at all. The finding is so perverse that no reasonable person could come to such a conclusion. His argument is not on the merits of the case but on the procedure irregularly committed by the Munsiff in granting the temporary injunction. He also relied on a judgment of the apex court in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel [ (2022) 4 SCC 181 ]. 11. The counsel for the 1st respondent, Shri.Santhan V. Nair, reiterated the contention raised in the counter affidavit and relied on the judgment of the apex court in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and others (2000 KHC 1703) and argued that when an ex parte injunction is passed by a trial court under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, the party against whom the order is passed has a choice either to move the same court, which passed the ex parte order under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC or move appellate court under Order 43 Rule 1(r) and without exhausting the above 2 remedies, the petitioner cannot rush to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the judgment of the apex court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others v. Tuticorin Educational Society and others (2019 KHC 7006), that when an alternate remedy is available against the impugned order, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. 12. He also relied on the judgment of the apex court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others v. Tuticorin Educational Society and others (2019 KHC 7006), that when an alternate remedy is available against the impugned order, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. 12. Order 39 Rule 1 CPC deals with the grant of temporary injunctions: In a suit, if it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that any property in dispute is in danger or being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree or that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or dispossession of the property. By Ext.P4, the learned Munsiff, after perusing the affidavit in support of the application and documents filed, was satisfied that there is a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and that if the injunction is refused, it may cause irreparable injury and therefore, granted an order of temporary injunction without issuing notice to the defendants. 13. When the learned Munsiff exercises discretion on a perusal of the affidavit in support of the petition and plaint and if any person is aggrieved by the said order, it is for the aggrieved party to either approach the same court to discharge, vary or set aside the said order under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC or to approach the appellate court under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to approach the same Court or to file an appeal but instead invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the efficacious alternate remedy is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure itself. 14. In Estralla Rubber (supra), the scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the jurisdiction of this court has been examined and explained. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: “6. 14. In Estralla Rubber (supra), the scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the jurisdiction of this court has been examined and explained. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: “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." It is true that this Court is not powerless to set aside or interfere with the orders of an inferior court or tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if there is no evidence at all to justify the order finding is so perverse. A perusal of Ext.P4 does not show that the said order is neither passed on a perverse appreciation of facts nor that there is no evidence for grant of injunction. At this point, the counter petitioners in I.A. No.9 of 2024 have not come before this Court challenging the said order. A perusal of Ext.P4 does not show that the said order is neither passed on a perverse appreciation of facts nor that there is no evidence for grant of injunction. At this point, the counter petitioners in I.A. No.9 of 2024 have not come before this Court challenging the said order. The 8th counter-petitioner in Ext.P4 is Mr Madan Mohan, Secretary of Tug of War Federation of India, and he is not made as a counter-petitioner representing the petitioner Federation herein. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of injunction as per Ext.P4, it is for him to get himself impleaded as well as in the suit and the interlocutory application and file a petition under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to get it varied or modified or to challenge before the appellate court under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. It is now brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner has filed an application for impleadment in the suit. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that invocation under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at this stage, is unwarranted, more particularly based on the dictum laid down in Estralla Rubber (supra). In the result, this O.P.(C) fails and it is dismissed.