THE BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU v. V.K.SETHUKUMAR

The challenge in this revision is to the entertaining of a suit in OS.No.5174 of 2020 by the Bar Council Tamilnadu and Puducherry. 2.The said suit has been initiated by the 1st respondent herein seeking damages of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Chairman and Members of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry for having taken disciplinary action and imposing punishment of reprimand on him. It is also seen that the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry was set aside by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India on 29.11.2014. 3.Contending that the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry reprimanding him, caused loss of reputation & damages to him, the 1st respondent launched the above suit. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry is before me invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking rejection of the plaint. C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021 4.I have heard Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry. 5.Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar would submit that Section 48 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 bars Civil Courts from entertaining suits regarding action taken under the said Act. He would further contend that the Doctrine of Merger would also apply because the order of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry was reversed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India relying upon S.S.Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1989 (4) SCC 582. I do not think, I can entertain the revision filed under Article 227, when a specific remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C is available. Order VII Rule 11(d) empowers a Civil Court to reject the plaint, if it finds that a suit is barred under any law. It is open to the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry to petition the District Court, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 citing the same bar that is now invoked before me. C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021 6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Others reported in 2019 (9) SCC 538 has held that the High Court will not, as a matter of discipline and prudence, exercise the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when a remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure before the appropriate Civil Court forum. 7.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, I do not think, this revision could be entertained. This civil revision petition is therefore, dismissed. Reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all issues before the Trial Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.11.2021 Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021 To:- 1.The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, Rep. By its Secretary, High Court Building, Chennai 600 104. 2.The V-Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. C.R.P(PD)No.2125 of 2021 and CMP.No.16145 of 2021 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. C.R.P(PD)No. 2125 of 2021 CMP.No.1 6145 of 2021 23.11.2021