1. Both the revisions petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, after obtaining the leave of this Court by the revision petitioners, since they are not parties to the suit in O.S No. 264 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.

2. This order shall dispose of the above two C.R.Ps

3. The first respondent in both the C.R.Ps had filed a suit before the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi in O.S No. 264/2003, against respondents 2 to 4 in this revision (who are given up later), impleading them as defendants, for injunction restraining them in any way issuing ‘No Objection’ certificate, to any wind farm developers or their agents concerning the property of the plaintiff situated at Rameswaram. Along with the said suit, he had filed I.A No. 1042/2003 for ad interim injunction also.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi 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 in 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 ex parte 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 stand, which requires erasion by this Court, on the strength of superintendence power.

6. The second petitioner in both the revisions claims to be a reputed multi-national company, engaged in the business of manufacturing, erecting and commissioning wind turbine generators on turn-key basis, for its customers, in the field of non conventional energy sources. On identification of suitable lands, for installing wind electrical generators, the owners of the lands used to enter into an agreement with them, for the erection of wind turbine generators. In this way, it seems the first petitioners in both the revisions, claiming to be the owners of certain lands, which are the subject matter of O.S No. 264/2003, approached the second revision petitioner and entered into a contract, for installation of certain number of wind electric generators at Rameswaram. Because of the injunction obtained by the first respondent/plaintiff, without impleading the persons, who claim interest in the suit property and the persons who are entitled to receive the ‘No Objection’ certificate from the defendants, they have filed these two revision petitions, for the purpose of setting aside the order of the trial Court, since there was an abuse of process of Court, that too at the instance of the plaintiff/the first respondent approaching the Court, which had no jurisdiction.

7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.L Somayaji for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents, Mr. G.R Swaminathan.

8. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.L Somayaji, appearing for the revision petitioners submits that:

(i) the Trial Court grossly committed an error in taking the case on file, without jurisdiction even as per the averments in the plaint, and

(ii) the Trial Court had granted injunction or allowed the application, without taking into consideration the fact that the affected parties are not before the Court and aided the first respondent/plaintiff in the process of abusing the Court procedure, thereby vesting undue advantage, detriment to the affected parties, when the first respondent/plaintiff moved the Court, which had no jurisdiction.

9. On the above contentions, the learned Senior Counsel submits, that the order of the Trial Court has to be set aside and if at all, the plaint has to be ordered to be returned, for representation before the proper 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, 2000 (4) CTC 358. 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. Though the suit is one valued under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, for injunction, the same relates to the property of the plaintiff, as claimed. Prayer (a) reads: -“restraining the defendant and their men from in any way issuing No Objection Certificates to any wind farm developers or their agents concerning the property of the plaintiff situated at Rameswaram”. The plaintiff has also attached valuation slip, conceding that the suit relates to immovable property. Admittedly, the property for which injunction sought for, in a way, is situated at Rameswaram Village, Ramnad District, which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge, Pollachi. As seen from the cause title, the plaintiff alone is living within the territorial jurisdiction of Pollachi Sub Court, having his residence at No. 23, Kamaraj Road, Mahalingapuram, Pollachi. Indisputably, defendants 1 & 2 are having their offices at Chennai and the third defendant is having his office at Thirunelveli. Thus, it is made clear none of the defendants are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Pollachi. Since the suit relates to immovable property, Section 16 of C.P.C is attracted for the purpose of jurisdiction, which reads:

“Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits-

(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits;

(b) for the partition of immovable property;

(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property;

(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property;

(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property;

(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment;

shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:

12. It is not the case in Section 16, C.P.C that a suit could be laid, where the cause of action wholly or in part arises as in Section 20 of C.P.C The admitted position being so, Pollachi Sub Court has no jurisdiction at all, since the subject matter of the suit is situated at Rameswaram. As seen from the cause of action paragraph also, it is not made clear by the plaintiff/first respondent, how Pollachi Sub Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. To confer jurisdiction 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 only at Sholinganallur at Chennai and it is not the case of the plaintiff, that there is a branch office at Pollachi or anywhere within the territorial jurisdiction of Sub Court, Pollachi. As aforementioned, the competent persons, who could issue ‘No Objection’ Certificate to wind farm developers are not having their office at Pollachi and as seen from the cause title in the plaint itself, 1 & 2 defendants are having their office at Chennai and the third defendant is having his office at Tirunelveli. Therefore, the revision petitioners would not have gone to Pollachi requesting the defendants in the suit to issue ‘No Objection’ Certificate. Therefore the allegations, that the cause of action had arisen at Pollachi, when the defendants are requested to issue ‘No Objection’ Certificate at Pollachi must be unadulterated lie, to the knowledge of the plaintiff.

14. The plaintiff ought to have at least impleaded the party viz., wind farm developers, since injunction sought for is, not to issue ‘No Objection’ Certificate to the wind farm developers. The plaintiff's, Managing Director, very cleverly, wantonly, cunningly, had chosen the Court of his choice, for the reasons best known to him. Thus, without jurisdiction, a suit was filed before the Pollachi Sub Court and an order of injunction was also obtained, taking notice to the uninterested parties alone, thereby depriving the legitimate rights of the revision petitioners, since they are the ultimate beneficiaries, by the issue of ‘No Objection’ Certificate, by the defendants in the suit. In this view of the matter, a cursory reading of the plaint, including the description of property, would make it crystal clear, that Pollachi, Sub Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But, unfortunately, the plaintiff approached the Court, which had no jurisdiction, with an ulterior motive, conferring upon jurisdiction, probably to deprive the right of the revision petitioners, that too without their knowledge, for which the Sub Court also seems to have aided, in entertaining the suit.

15. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, the learned Subordinate Judge without jurisdiction had taken the case on file, issued notice in the injunction application to the uninterested persons and on their failure to contest the case, naturally I.A was allowed, 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 v. 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 is a well recognised principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy. Learned single judge need not have entertained the revision petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as if may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the revision petition.”

17. Here also, the Apex Court had observed, there is no hurdle for this Court, to exercise the constitutional power, which is well recognised principle, which gained judicial recognition. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court, that the parties should be directed to avail the remedy available, before the Trial Court, should be followed, if the suit instituted by the parties are well framed or instituted or laid before the competent Court, having jurisdiction to decide the case. If a Court had no jurisdiction, to entertain a suit in that case, if a direction is given to the parties to approach the Court concerned, for appropriate remedies, then it would amount to vesting the jurisdiction upon a Court, which has no jurisdiction under law. For the reasons aforementioned, on the basis of the pleadings, there could be no second opinion, that the Pollachi Sub Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The position being so, placing reliance upon the above decision, it is not desirable, to direct the revision petitioners, to approach the same Court, for the remedies. Whenever, wherever the lower Courts have committed jurisdictional error, knowingly or unknowingly, which was brought to the notice of this Court, then under the power of superintendence over all the Courts, as adumbrated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should exercise its power and rectify the mistake, if not, the existence of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, may not have relevance at all. In this view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent, that the revision petitioners should be directed to approach the Court concerned, for appropriate relief and the relief claimed by the revision petitioners should not be granted directly by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of 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, 1995 (2) CTC 323 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.

18. 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, without jurisdiction and in this view, the same is liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reasons, I am constrained to accept the revisions, rejecting the defence, thereby setting aside the order of the Trial Court in I.A No. 1042 of 2003 in O.S No. 264/2003.

19. The Code of Civil Procedures empowers the Court to return the plaint, at any stage, for presentation in proper Court, having jurisdiction. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff/first respondent in this case is not entitled to the benefit of the said section, since as aforementioned, with ulterior motive, knowing fully well that the Sub Court, Pollachi had no jurisdiction, he has filed the suit, thereby compelled the revision petitioners also, to come to this Court, unnecessarily. Considering the attitude of the plaintiff, choosing the Court of his choice, the plaint need not be ordered to be returned to be presented before the Court, in which the suit should have originally been instituted, following the procedure contemplated under Order VII, Rule 10, 10(a) of C.P.C The entire conduct of the plaintiff brought to surface his evil idea, to obtain an order behind the back of the parties, who are interested in the property and such a person need not be shown any leniency. In this view, instead of ordering return of plaint, I am constrained to strike out O.S No. 264/2003 from the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi, since it had no jurisdiction, thereby ordering the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, to delete the suit from the file.

In the result, the revision is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi in I.A No. 1042/2003 in O.S No. 264/2003, further ordering the learned Subordinate Judge, to delete the suit from his file, as it is not maintainable, for want of jurisdiction. Further, the first respondent in both the C.R.Ps is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000 as costs, in each C.R.P C.M.P Nos. 15093 and 15094 of 2003 are closed.

RSN