Supreme Court Intervention in Society Dispute: Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 03 October 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1071

Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a High Court entertain a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when an appeal remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a dispute within a society, focusing on the appropriate legal avenues for challenging interim orders. The bench, comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and V. Ramasubramanian, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute within the Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai, a society, and the Tuticorin Educational Society. The appellants filed a suit (O.S. No. 145 of 2018) in the Principal District Munsif Court at Thoothukudi, seeking a declaration that the notice for a General Body Meeting and Executive Committee meeting scheduled for May 5, 2018, was illegal. They also sought injunctions against the respondents from convening these meetings, a declaration that the appointment of the fifth defendant as a patron for life was unlawful, and a permanent injunction restraining the sixth defendant from acting as the Secretary of the society. Additionally, they requested the appointment of a commissioner to oversee fair elections for the society’s office bearers.

Along with the suit, the appellants filed interlocutory applications seeking interim injunctions to prevent the scheduled meetings and to restrain the fifth and sixth defendants from acting as Patron and Secretary, respectively.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, after considering the pleadings and documents from both sides, granted an interim injunction on April 26, 2018, restraining the defendants from proceeding with the scheduled meetings. The fifth defendant, claiming to be the Patron for life, filed a Regular Appeal against this order in the Sub-Court at Thoothukudi. However, the first and sixth defendants (respondents 1 and 2) filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, under Article 227 of the Constitution, instead of filing a regular appeal.

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the trial court’s injunction order, despite objections to its maintainability due to the availability of an appellate remedy. The High Court justified its intervention by citing its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure subordinate courts stay within the bounds of law. It also criticized the trial court for what it perceived as a hurried process.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Article 227 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.
• Section 104(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section provides for appeals against orders, including orders granting or refusing injunctions.
• Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule specifies that an appeal shall lie from an order under Rule 1, Order XXXIX which grants or refuses to grant an injunction.
• Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule mandates the disposal of an application for injunction within 30 days, whenever an injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, this power should be exercised judiciously, especially when a specific remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants contended that the High Court erred in entertaining the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, especially when a specific remedy of appeal was available under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• They argued that the High Court overlooked the fact that an appeal against the same order of injunction was already pending before the Sub-Court at Tuticorin.
• The appellants also pointed out that the second respondent, who represented the first respondent-Society in the High Court, was restrained by the Sub-Court from acting as the Secretary of the Society.
• They submitted that the trial court had considered all the documents and pleadings before passing the order on merits.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of law.
• They contended that the trial court had proceeded in great haste in granting the injunction, thereby burying justice.
• The respondents relied on decisions that emphasized the High Court’s power to correct errors of subordinate courts.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument was innovative in highlighting that the High Court should not have entertained a revision petition when an appeal was already pending, and that the second respondent was not authorized to represent the society due to a prior restraint order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when a specific remedy of appeal was available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
2. Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court on the ground of the Trial Court having proceeded in haste?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 695] – Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that while the High Court’s constitutional powers cannot be restricted, it should generally direct parties to exhaust alternative remedies before resorting to constitutional remedies.
• Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675] – Supreme Court of India: This case was overruled by a subsequent decision.
• Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423] – Supreme Court of India: The Court cited this case to highlight that orders of civil courts stand on a different footing from orders of other authorities or tribunals. This case overruled the decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan & Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 695]* to underscore the principle that constitutional powers should be used judiciously, especially when alternative remedies are available. The Court also cited Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423]*, which overruled Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675]*, to emphasize that orders of civil courts are distinct from those of other authorities, and that revisions under Article 227 should be a near-total bar when an appeal remedy exists under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The availability of a specific remedy of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should have been the first recourse for the respondents.
• The need to maintain judicial discipline and prudence by not invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 when an alternative remedy is available.
• The fact that the second respondent, who represented the first respondent-Society in the High Court, was restrained by the Sub-Court from acting as the Secretary of the Society.
• The trial court had considered all the documents and pleadings before passing the order on merits.

The Court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a revision petition under Article 227 when a specific remedy of appeal was available?

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court on the ground of the Trial Court having proceeded in haste?

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when a specific remedy of appeal was available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and prudence in such matters. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court also overlooked the fact that the second respondent was restrained by the Sub-Court from acting as the Secretary of the Society. The Court also found that the Trial Court had passed the order on merits after due consideration of the pleadings and documents.

The Court observed, “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.”

The Court further stated, “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 Code of Civil procedure 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.”

The Court also noted, “The observation of the High Court that the trial Court proceeded in great haste, appears to be uncharitable.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s injunction order. Given the history of litigation, the Court also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the election of office bearers for the society to bring an end to the disputes.

Key Takeaways

• When a remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, parties should exhaust that remedy before approaching the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
• The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should be exercised judiciously, especially when an alternative remedy is available.
• Orders of civil courts are distinct from those of other authorities, and revisions under Article 227 should be a near-total bar when an appeal remedy exists under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Trial courts should be given due consideration for orders passed on merits after considering pleadings and documents.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

1. The order of the High Court and the elections held pursuant to it were set aside.
2. Smt. S. Sornalatha, Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner to convene the General Body and the Executive Committee for the election of office bearers.
3. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to address letters to the sponsoring bodies for nominating members to the General Body and the Executive Committee.
4. The sponsoring bodies were directed to send a list of nominated members within one week of receiving the letter from the Advocate Commissioner.
5. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to convene meetings and hold elections within four weeks of receiving the nominations.
6. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to ensure that Form Nos. 6 and 7 are registered with the Registrar of Societies.
7. The first respondent society was directed to pay the Advocate Commissioner a remuneration of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with reimbursement of expenses.
8. The Advocate Commissioner was directed to discharge the duties of the Secretary of the first respondent-Society until the elections are held and results are declared.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a specific remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court should not entertain a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This reinforces the principle that alternative remedies should be exhausted before resorting to constitutional remedies and clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction in such cases. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423] and provides clarity on the distinction between orders of civil courts and other authorities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when a specific remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and prudence, directing parties to exhaust alternative remedies before invoking constitutional remedies. The decision also highlights the importance of trial courts passing orders on merits after due consideration of pleadings and documents. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the elections aims to resolve the long-standing disputes within the society.

Category

• Civil Law
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Article 227, Constitution of India
  • Interim Injunctions
  • Supervisory Jurisdiction
  • Appellate Remedies
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Section 104, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order XLIII Rule 1(r), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Order XXXIX Rule 3A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Constitution of India
  • Article 227, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for cases involving interim orders in civil courts?

A: This judgment clarifies that if a civil court passes an interim order and there’s a provision for appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, the affected party should first file an appeal in the appropriate court. They should not directly approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Q: When can a High Court interfere with an order of a lower court under Article 227?

A: A High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within the bounds of law. However, this power should be used judiciously and not as a substitute for an appeal, especially when an appeal remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Q: What is the significance of exhausting alternative remedies?

A: Exhausting alternative remedies, such as appeals, is important because it prevents unnecessary litigation and ensures that matters are first addressed by the appropriate forum. It also promotes judicial discipline and prevents the High Court from being burdened with matters that can be resolved through other legal avenues.

Q: What does it mean for a High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction?

A: The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 allows it to oversee the functioning of lower courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. This power is meant to ensure that these bodies act legally and fairly. However, this power is not unlimited and should be used judiciously, especially when alternative remedies are available.

Q: What is the role of an Advocate Commissioner in this case?

A: In this case, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Supreme Court to oversee the election of office bearers for the society. This was done to ensure a fair and transparent process and to bring an end to the long-standing disputes within the society.