S AMANULLA KHAN Vs. AL AMEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Third Party-Amanulla Khan, challenging the order of the District Munsif, Ilayangudi dated 12. 11. 2002 in I. A. No. 173 of 2002 in O. S. No. 24 of 2002, granting Injunction in favour of the First respondent / Plaintiff. The Interim Order relates to Ilayankudi Muslim educational Association. Revision Petitioner - Amanulla Khan is the Third party.

(2.) THE Revision Petitioner is represented by Counsel Mr. R. Devaraj for Mr. M. Sriram and the Second Respondent is represented by government Advocate Mr. V. Vivekanandan. First Respondent entered appearance through counsel. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the Revision Petition is preferred at the instance of the Third Party and that presently a New Secretary has been appointed for Ilayankudi Muslim educational Association, the main Revision Petition itself has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(3.) THE case in hand stands on different footing. No doubt, the Plaintiff ought to have impleaded Amanulla Khan. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned District Munsif could have directed the Plaintiff � Al Ameen to implead Amanulla Khan, but that was not done. But, that does not in any way warrant interference of the Impugned Order at the instance of the Third Party, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. As elaborated earlier, when the revision Petitioner repeatedly has been approaching the High Court by filing number of Writ Petitions, nothing prevented him by filing a Petition under order 1 Rule 10 C. P. C for impleading himself in O. S. No. 24 of 2002 and filing application for vacating the Injunction; but that was not done. On the other hand, the Revision Petitioner has filed this Revision under Article 227 of the constitution of India seeking intervention of the Court to set aside the order of Injunction in I. A. No. 173 of 2002. When alternative effective remedy is available, by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, this Court would not interfere with the orders of the court below. In view of the availability of the effective alternative remedy, the Impugned Order cannot be interfered with. It is stated that after the revision Petitioner - Amanulla Khan, presently new Secretary has been appointed, who has been recognised by Second Defendant � DEO, Sivagangai. By change of subsequent events, the Suit might have become infructuous and it is for the Trial Court to take note of the same. It would not be appropriate for this Court to issue directions in this regard. In that view of the matter, this revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.