TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED Vs. THATTAPARAI MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY THATTAPARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A. No. 33 of 1994 in O.S. No 33 of 94 dated 11-2-1994 wherein the Court below has observed that notice was served on the second respondent, He was called absent and set ex-parte. So far as 1st and third respondents are concerned they have been exonerated and the petition is allowed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent in the said I A. that he was not served with the notice and the statement made by the lower court tbat the notice was served is not correct. Further, the relief in the suit has been sought for against all the respondents and if the respondents 1 and 3 in the I.A. have been given up, then the plaintiff may not be entitled for an order of injunction. On coming to know the order of injunction dated 11-2-1294 instead of filing the copy application and getting the certified copy and rushing to Madras, the petitioner could have filed the petition for setting aside the order of setting him exparte and moved for the stay of the operation of the injunction order. Without doing so, the petitioner has chosen to file this petition before this Court on 9-5-1994 and it is listed after one year for admission that is to-day, By this time if the petitioner had taken proper steps before the court below, the injunction would have been vacated and the conduct of the petitioner is nothing but to delay the proceedings though the interim order is against him THE officers should be properly advised in getting their redressal when the order of the court below can be rectified by tbat court itself. It is not clear as to why the petitioner had rushed to this Court and waited for one year without even moving the C R.P. by way of urgent motion. It is true that Article 22V of the Constitution has been proved to have an overall superintendence over the lower court. But, it does not mean that against each and every order of this Court has to entertain the revision. Wherever the enquiry requires certain evidence this Court cannot entertain the revision and it is for the parties to approach the concerned lower courts for their rediessal In this case, when the petitioner contends that no notice has been served on him naturally with regard to the service, evidence has to be taken It can be done only before the court below. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to entertain the revision and the revision is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to fite an application for setting aside the order of netting him exparte and seeking other reliefs before the lower court. THE stay petition in C.M.P. No. 6765 of 1995 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.