9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollachi ordered notice to the respondents on 13.8.2003, fixing the hearing date as 2.9.2003. On 2.9.2003, the notices were not returned and therefore, the case was adjourned to 15.9.2003. On that date, the Court received the postal acknowledgment from the defendants viz., respondents 2 to 4 in this revision, as if the notices were served by post. Despite the fact, the defendants in the suit have received the notices, they failed to appear before the Court, which resulted an ex-parte order, thereby allowing the application on 15.9.2003, under which virtually the defendants are restrained in any way issuing 'No Objection' certificate, to any of the wind farm developers, with the regard to the suit property. 5. The revision petitioners, against whom an exparte order of injunction has been obtained, without impleading them as parties, aggrieved by the same, after obtaining the leave of this Court, filed these two revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, alleging that there was abuse of court process and the trial Court has committed a blunder, in taking the case on file, without jurisdiction and an order passed without jurisdiction, should not be allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court or strike off, since the trial Court, which granted injunction and entertained the suit, has no jurisdiction of any kind, and this should be done under superintendence power, conferred upon this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Opposing the above contentions, the learned counsel Mr.G.R. Swaminathan submits, that even assuming that the Court had committed some error, the order cannot be set aside straight away and the parties should be directed to approach the trial Court, to avail themselves all such remedies available under C.P.C. and the Court should not directly exercise its jurisdiction, when the parties have not resorted to seek remedy before the trial Court and hurriedly resorted to constitutional remedy, placing reliance upon a decision in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan . In this context, we have to see the nature of the suit, against whom it is filed and the Court which entertained the suit had jurisdiction, or not. 11. The suit O.S. No. 264/2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Pollachi, relates to an immovable property, for which there cannot be any dispute, which could be seen from the frame of the suit itself. Thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction upon the Sub Court, Pollachi, the cause of action paragraph reads : ....when the plaintiff cancelled the said Power of Attorney and on 9.8.2003 the plaintiff come to know about the invalid acts of the Power of Attorney and on subsequent date when the defendants are requested to issue No Objection Certificate to the Wind Farm Developers at Pollachi within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court . Admittedly, the persons, who have entered into contract with the wind farm developers, for the installation of the wind electrical generators, are not residing within the jurisdiction of Pollachi, Sub Court. 13. The revision petitioners are the wind farm developers. The 1st petitioners in both the revision petitions are the owners of a portion of the subject matter of the suit property as claimed and the second petitioner is the person, who installs wind electrical generators, at the request of the land owners, on the basis of the contract entered into between them. Suguna Poultry Farm Limited is within the jurisdiction of Coimbatore and SCM Creations Partnership firm is within the Sub Court jurisdiction of Tirupur. The second petitioner in this revision is having his office o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed, which should be construed as an abuse of process of court. Since, in my view, the trial Court had entertained the suit without jurisdiction and allowed the injunction application also, the illegality committed by the Court, that too without jurisdiction, has to be set aside, by the power conferred upon this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, failing which there would be miscarriage of justice, paving way, allowing the parties to chose the Court of their choice, against all established norms and procedures, creating chaos. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Challapan that the parties should be directed to approach the trial Court, to avail the available remedies, in my considered opinion, is not well founded in this case. The Apex Court in the above ruling has observed at page 364 as follows: Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the Constitutional powers of the High Court it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. 18. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, relying upon a decision in Sri Suryanarayana Paper Boards Pvt. Ltd. 5 Ors v. Padmakumar 2 Ors would contend, that when the subordinate courts have passed an order, not having territorial jurisdiction, that should be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case involved in the above decision, a suit was filed before Udumalpet District Munsif Court, which had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as per the averments in the plaint and it appears, ad interim injunction was also granted. When the same was challenged, by the parties concerned, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court took the view, considering the averments in the plaint, that District Munsif, Udumalpet, chose to receive the plaint and granted ad interim orders without jurisdiction, which are unsustainable and have to be set aside, which ratio is squarely applicable to this case on hand. 19. The entire reading of the plaint undoubtedly brought to surface, that Pollachi Sub Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge erroneously entertained the suit, and also granted injunction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
