M RANGASAMY Vs. S PALANIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against orders of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, in unnumbered R.E.A. Nos. of 1993 in R.E.P. No. 86 of 1990 in O.S. No. 1192 of 1980. Two petitions were filed before the Sub Court, Salem, one under O. 21, R. 26 and S. 151, C.P.C. praying to stay the passing of the order of delivery in the execution petition filed by the petitioner under O. 21, Rr. 96, 97, 101 and S. 151 C.P.C. and the other petition was filed under O. 21 Rr. 96, 97, 101 and S. 151 C.P.C. praying the court to order the Amin or any officer under the direction of the court to record the petitioner's objection and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. When both the abovesaid petitions were dismissed, the petitioner is before this Court with these civil revision petitions.

(2.) IT is admitted that the petitioner is a third party. The petitioner contended that he is a third party, that he is a tenant under the respondents 3 to 5 in the suit property and that he obtained an order from the Tahsildar for his tenancy in the suit property, on 9.1.1991. IT is also contended that the petitioner herein does not know about the proceedings in E.P. No. 86 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Salem with regard to the suit property all these years and that his right of tenancy in the suit property cannot be disturbed, due to the order in E.P. 86 of 1990 mentioned above.

(3.) AFTER considering the arguments of Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and of Mr. S.P. Subramaniam, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and on going through the relevant materials produced before me, I am of the view that these petitions filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India need not be entertained. As I have already stated, the respondent has been kept at bay for the past 13 years. C.R.P. No. 3543 of 1992, which has been filed by respondents 2 to 5 has been dismissed by Arunachalam, J. by order dated 11.1.1993. A reading of the order of the learned Judge will clearly show as to how the first respondent has been driven from pillar to post for several years by respondents 2 to 5 and now the petitioner is trying to stall the proceedings. I do not see how O. 21 R. 96 and 97 C.P.C. will apply to the facts of the cases. Looking at from any angle, these two civil revision petitions are not fit cases to be entertained under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first, respondent. When the respondents 2 to 5 have taken a clear stand before this Court, pending second appeal, that they are in possession of the suit property, it is highly surprising to note how the petitioner can contend now that he is in possession of the suit property. It is well settled that this Court is exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The mere fact that a different view could have been taken by the Executing Court would be no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. If all the relevant factors have been borne in mind and correct legal principles applied and then right or wrong, if a view has been taken by the lower court, in my view the interference under Art. 227 of the Constitution is wholly unwarranted. Further, the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court should not be exercised when the lower Court has rendered justice, especially looking at the facts of the cases on hand. As held by the Supreme Court in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde AIR 1978 S.C. 855 in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere with an order which has been passed properly. It is also stated therein that this Court under Art. 227 has a limited jurisdiction. The power under Art. 227 of the Constitution is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset the conclusions on facts or law however erroneous that may be. As such, I am of the view that the orders impugned herein, are not orders to be interfered with under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in these petitions and accordingly they are dismissed. No costs.