TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Society seem to have created a series of litigation before three different fora namely (i) the Civil Courts) (ii) the Registrar of Societies (iii) the High court (in Writ Petitions arising out of orders of the Registrar of Societies). The only way to bring to an end all the litigations between the parties before various fora is to set aside the impugned order and the elections held pursuant thereto and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to convene the General Body as well as the Executive Committee for the election of office bearers. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the high court as well as the elections purportedly held pursuant to the order of the High Court are set aside. - Civil Appeal No. 7764 Of 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26055 of 2018) - - - Dated:- 3-10-2019 - V. Ramasubramanian, J. JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian 1. Leave granted. 2. Aggrieved by an order of the High Court passed under Article 227 of the Constitution, vacating an interim order of injunction granted by the trial Court, the plaintiffs have come up with this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents filed along with the counter affidavits of the defendants. 8. As against the order of the trial court granting injunction, the fifth defendant in the suit (the third respondent in this appeal) who was claiming to be the Patron for life, filed a Regular Appeal in C.M.A No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court at Thothukudi under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the respondent nos.1 2 herein who were the defendant Nos.1 6 respectively, instead of filing a Regular Appeal, filed a Civil Revision in C.R.P.(MD) (PD) No.1084 of 2018 on the file of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Despite objections to the maintainability of the revision on the ground of availability of an appellate remedy under the Code, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. It is against the said order that the plaintiffs have come up with the above appeal. 10. The objection to the maintainability of the revision was sought to be overcome by the High Court on the basis of a few decisions which revolved around the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which the respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High court. This is why, a 3 member Bench of this court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675) , pointed out in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423) that orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. 14. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself. 15. Another aspect that was overlooked by the High Court was that the second respondent herein namely Shri A. Rajendran was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure itself mandates the disposal of an application for injunction within 30 days, whenever an injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party. In this case, the trial Court, without granting an ex parte order of injunction, chose to allow the opposite parties to file counter affidavit(s) along with documents and then heard the opposite parties before allowing the application for injunction. Finding the line of demarcation between speedy disposal and hurried dispatch, with mathematical precision, is not possible. In any case, even if the High Court was convinced that the trial Court had proceeded hastily, the High Court could have only remanded the matter back. But the High Court allowed the application for injunction without recording any finding on merits. In fact the order of the Trial Court deals with the rival contentions and is one passed on merits after due consideration of the pleadings and documents. The High Court unfortunately did not even deal with the matter on merits to over turn the decision of the Trial Court. Therefore, the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the order of the Trial Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the Madras High Court. Pending 4. Elections held on 21.03.2015 A suit O.S No.21 of 2016 was filed by the present appellant No.1 for a declaration that the election allegedly held on 21.03.2015 was null and void and for a permanent injunction District Munsiff Court at Tuticorin. suit pending 5. The newly elected office bearers sought to amend the bye laws. The amendment was rejected by the District Registrar. A writ petition in WP (MD) No.13144 of 2016 filed challenging the order of the District Registrar. Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Pending 6. A fresh notice dated 10.06.2017 issued convening the meetings of the General Body and the Executive Committee on 8.07.2017. A suit O.S. No.195 of 2017 seeking a declaration that the notices were null and void and for a permanent injunction filed by the appellant No.1 District Munsiff Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
