M. MANIANNAN Vs. B. CHANDRIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes dated 28.11.2012 made in M.P.No.545 of 2012 in M.P.No.384 of 2012 in RCA No.419 of 2012.

(2.) If the petitioner's interpretation has to be accepted, there will be a chaos and there will be violation of hierarchy of courts. If any of the courts passed wrong or erroneous order, it is only for the petitioner to approach Appellate Authority to decide as to whether the lower Forum/Court committed error or illegality while passing the order. In this case, an order was passed by the Small Causes Court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court and later by this Court. This said order is challenged very curiously before the Small Causes Court by filing application under Section 47 C.P.C. contending that this Court (High Court) erred in confirming the order passed by the Courts below. By filing this petition, the petitioner has to put the lowest forum namely, the Small Causes Court, in an embarrassing position to decide about the validity of the order passed by the highest court of the State which is never contemplated under the Law.

(3.) The contention regarding non-consideration or passing of erroneous order by this Court has to be decided only by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not by filing petition under Section 47 C.P.C.. After loosing the case before the High Court, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 47 C.P.C. before the Small Causes Court, which will make the people loose faith in the judicial System and the people who approach the court with fond hope of getting justice will ultimately be frustrated and would drive them to take extraneous methods or illegal methods to get instant justice in the hands of thugs and their groups, which are all very active nowadays, on which this court cannot loose sight of it. If this court is to sustain the contention made by the petitioner, it will only make the litigation prolonged for ever. The litigant who came to the court with faith would blame the justice delivery system. Therefore, serious view is required to be taken. This case is only a tip of iceberg. Even after confirmation of lower court orders by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the parties very casually either filed another suit or petition under Section 47 C.P.C. or set up some third parties to see that the decree is not executed thereby prevent the decree-holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree obtained after many years in legal bottle.