VIRUDHUNAGAR HINDU NADARGAL DHARMA PARIBALANA SABAI & ORS. versus TUTICORIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 03-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
VIRUDHUNAGAR HINDU NADARGAL
DHARMA PARIBALANA SABAI & ORS.
v.
TUTICORIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7764  of  2019)
OCTOBER 03, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art.227 – Jurisdiction under – Scope of – Though
availability of a remedy of appeal may not always be a bar for
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court – But in civil
proceedings under CPC, when  the forum is civil court, availability
of remedy under CPC, will deter the High Court from exercising
its power of superintendence under Art.227 – In the present case,
since specific remedy of appeal was available to the party, High
Court should not have entertained the revision u/Art. 227.
Injunction:
Interim injunction in a civil suit – Restraining interalia the
respondent-Secretary of the respondent-Society from functioning
as Secretary – Challenged in revision petition – High Court allowed
the petition setting aside the injunction order holding that the  same
was passed in haste – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: High Court
had overlooked the fact that the respondent-Secretary having been
injuncted from acting as a Secretary of the respondent-Society,
could not have filed revision petition on behalf of the respondent-
Society – High Court was also wrong in holding that the order was
passed in haste – Injunction order was passed after duly hearing
the opposite party – Order XXXIX r.3A of CPC also mandates
disposal of injunction application within 30 days – Therefore,
impugned order set aside – Advocate Commissioner appointed to
convene the ‘General Body’ as well as ‘Executive Committee’
meeting for the election of Office Bearers – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXXIX r.3A.
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 634
634
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Primarily the High Court went wrong in
overlooking the fact that there was already an appeal under
Order XLI, Rule 1(r) of CPC, at the instance of the fifth
defendant in the suit (third respondent), as against the very same
order of injunction and, therefore, there was no justification for
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. [Para
11] [639-H; 640-A]
2. The High Court ought to have seen that when a remedy
of appeal under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order XLIII, Rule
1(r) of CPC was directly available, the respondents 1 and 2 ought
to have taken recourse to the same. It is true that the availability
of a remedy of appeal may not always be a bar for the exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. But courts should
always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such
alternative remedy is available before Civil Courts in terms of
the provisions of CPC and (ii) cases where such alternative
remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory
rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial
authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the
first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings
before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in
terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a
near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone 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. “orders of civil court
stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or Tribunals
or courts other than judicial/civil courts. Therefore wherever the
proceedings are under CPC 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. [Paras 12,
13 and 14] [640-B-G; 641-A-B]
VIRUDHUNAGAR HINDU NADARGAL DHARMA PARIBALANA
SABAI v. TUTICORIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
3. Another aspect that was overlooked by the High Court
was that the second respondent was already restrained by the
Sub-Court, from functioning as the Secretary of the first
respondent society. It is seen from the records that the civil
r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.