ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition has been filed against an order dated 02.11.2012 in C.M.A.(CS) No.20 of 2011, passed by the learned Cooperative Tribunal and Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, setting aside the orders passed under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) bearing S.C.No.2/10-11, dated 17.03.2011. 2. Through the said proceedings dated 17.03.2011, Respondent No. 1 herein was required to pay an amount of Rs.6,24,596.40 paise with interest at the rate of 15% till the date of realisation on the ground that Respondent No.1 being the legal representative of her deceased husband is liable to pay the said amount having succeeded to the estate of her deceased husband in terms of Section 87 of the Act. The husband of Respondent No.1 viz., Thiru V. Murugaiah worked as Secretary in the petitioner-Society from 01.04.2007 to 31.08.2009 and during the said period, he alleged to have committed certain irregularities and in view of the same, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Act was ordered which recommended for initiation of surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act through report dated 12.09.2010. However, in the meanwhile, the husband of Respondent No.1 died on 05.03.2009. In view of the same, the Enquiry Officer recommended for initiation of surcharge proceedings against Respondent No.1 herein. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 was made liable for an amount of Rs. 6,24,596.40 paise through proceedings dated 17.03.2011. 3. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, Respondent No.1 filed C.M.A.(CS) No.20 of 2011 before the Cooperative Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Tribunal by order dated 02.11.2012 holding that the petitioner-Society herein can proceed against the legal representative of the deceased Secretary, that is Respondent No.1 herein only in case if Respondent No.1 herein succeeded to the estate of her deceased husband. But no material is brought on record to establish that Respondent No.1 herein has inherited any estate of her deceased husband. The learned Tribunal has also taken note of the contention raised by the petitioner herein contending that Respondent No.1 herein has received certain amounts from the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the demise of her husband and the petitioner-Society has paid premiums in respect of the said policies and therefore, Respondent No.1 is bound to be treated as the one succeeded to the estate of her deceased husband. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein failed to substantiate the contention that Respondent No.1 succeeding to the estate of her deceased husband. 4. The learned Tribunal having appreciated the matter on factual aspects basing upon the evidence available before it, came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein failed to establish conclusively that Respondent No. 1 herein inherited to the estate of her deceased husband. Thus, having arrived at such conclusion, the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 herein. 5. Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner-Society as a matter of fact, paid premiums for the LIC policies obtained in the name of the husband of Respondent No.1 and the said policies were handed over to Respondent No.1 after the demise of her husband and accordingly, Respondent No.1 herein received the death claim amounts in respect of the said policies and therefore, Respondent No.1 herein is liable for the misleads/misappropriate committed by her deceased husband in terms of Section 87 of the Act. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the entire material on record. 7. No doubt, the petitioner has placed some material in support of its contention that Respondent No.1 herein has succeeded to the estate of her deceased husband to some extent. But the said material is not placed either during the surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act or before the learned Cooperative Tribunal. For the first time, such material is placed before this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 seriously disputed about the documents relied upon by the petitioner before this Court. The said material is sought to be relied upon for the first time before this Court in a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is very limited and it is only in case of procedural irregularity or failure on the part of the subordinate judiciary, in the matter of administration of justice etc., only, this Court would interfere, but not in a routine manner. 9. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is very limited and it is only in case of procedural irregularity or failure on the part of the subordinate judiciary, in the matter of administration of justice etc., only, this Court would interfere, but not in a routine manner. Admittedly, no material is placed either during the surcharge proceedings or before the learned Cooperative Tribunal to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that Respondent No.1 has succeeded to the estate of her deceased husband. When no such material was placed before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal cannot be found fault for arriving at the conclusion as noted herein above. Further, the petitioner is also not in a position to state as to what are the amounts that were received by Respondent No.1 herein after the demise of her husband and when such amounts were received. In the absence of any such positive asertion on the part of the petitioner herein, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Cooperative Tribunal dated 02.11.2012 makes it clear that the learned Tribunal has gone deep into the matter and thoroughly considered all the contentions raised by either side and arrived at right conclusion based on the material before it and there is nothing for this Court to find fault with the order under revision. 11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.