Registry Can't Raise Objections On Maintainability Even If Alternative Remedy Available, High Court's Discretion To Exercise Powers Under Article 227: Madras HC
In civil revision petitions filed challenging an order passed by Coimbatore Principal District Munsiff, Madras High Court has held that the power to issue writ under Article 226 or Article 227 is subject to the court's discretion even when an alternative remedy is available. The alternative remedy in itself won't constitute a bar for the High Court to exercise its revisional powers...
In civil revision petitions filed challenging an order passed by Coimbatore Principal District Munsiff, Madras High Court has held that the power to issue writ under Article 226 or Article 227 is subject to the court's discretion even when an alternative remedy is available. The alternative remedy in itself won't constitute a bar for the High Court to exercise its revisional powers under Article 227.
The court also made a clarification that the Registry shouldn't have queried about the maintainability of the revision petitions in light of alternative remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the order passed in the interim application by the Munsiff. Registry does not have such powers to raise objections on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure or under any other statute.
The single judge bench of Justice R. Subramanian was considering the revision petitions arising out of an order granting temporary injunctions restraining administrative committee from taking any policy decisions on appointments, change of correspondents and carrying out the day-to-day affairs of CSI Diocese until the conduct of 34th CSI Coimbatore Diocesan Council and interfering with the functions carried out by the current Presbyter and Chairman of the CIS All Souls' Church, Coimbatore.
When the matter came up before the bench on the aspect of maintainability, the court overruled the objections put forward by registry and directed that both the revisions must be numbered and posted for admission on 17th December, 2021.
The bench held that it is for the High Court to examine each case and take a call on whether court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 or relegate the matter back to the civil court or the tribunal as the case may be.
"…The constitutional Courts refrain from exercising the jurisdiction vested in them under the Constitution, if an alternative remedy is available to the party approaching them, as a matter of self imposed restraint or as a matter of prudence and discipline. Once it is held that it is for the Court to decide whether it will or will not exercise the constitutional power, it follows that the Registry does not have the right to question the maintainability of such petition, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy", the court added with respect to its supervisory powers under Article 226 or 227.
Referring to the constitutional bench judgments in Waryam Singh & Anr.v. Amarnath & Anr. (1954) and Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Ors. (1958), the court noted that the court's 'discretion' would mean that o say that the court can say if it will exercise its powers under Article 227 in certain circumstances like the existence of an alternative remedy. Therefore, such discretion is quite different from saying that a party cannot approach a Court for invoking Article 227 since there is an alternative remedy.
"It is one thing to say that the Revision is not maintainable and it is another to say that the High Court will not exercise the power of superintendence in view of the availability of alternative remedy. Even under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, have repeatedly held that availability of appeal remedy is not a blanket bar or total bar for invoking the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India", the court added.
While doing so, the court also placed reliance on Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Salai and others v. Tuticorin, 2019 (9) SCC 538 wherein the apex court made an observation that the existence of an appellate remedy under under CPC will have to be construed as a 'near total' bar.
Senior Counsel R. Viduthalai appearing for the petitioner in the first revision petition contended that the plaintiff can seek the court's interference under Article 227 especially when it can be demonstrated that the trial court overstepped its jurisdictional bounds while granting injunction, and the availability of alternative remedy by way of an appeal does not automatically negate that option. He also referred to Waryam Singh, Shalini Syam Shetty & Anr. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (8) SCC 329 and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chanderi Rai, 2003(6) SCC 675 to establish that Article 227 can be used sparingly in cases where it's necessary to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority or where they have refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law, i.e., something more than mere errors of law , manifest on the face of the record.
Making special reference to Shalini Shyam Shetty judgment, the counsel had also argued that High Court even has the power to substitute an order while exercising its powers under Article 227, which the inferior court should have made.
Case Title: Rt.Rev.Timothy Ravinder Dev Pradeep, The Bishop, CSI Coimbatore Diocese v. Rev.Charles Samraj.N & Anr.., The CSI Coimbatore Diocese Rep. by its Administrative Committee v. Rev.Charles Samraj.N & Anr.
Case No: C.R.P.Sr.Nos.109971 and 111067 of 2021
Appearance: For Petitioner in CRP.Sr.No.109971 of 2021 : Mr.R.Viduthalai, Senior Counsel
For Petitioner in CRP.Sr.No.111067 of 2021 : Mr.V.Selvaraj
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 31