POOSARI A ALAGUMUTHURAJA Vs. T MUTHUSAMY (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the order, dated 05.06.1992, in O.A.No.30 of 1990, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. ADMN Department, Tiruchirapalli, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Registry has returned the papers questioning the maintainability of the civil revision petition, as it has been pointed out that as against the impugned order, the appeal remedy is available under the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 and hence, the petitioner, without exhausting the said appeal remedy, is not entitled to maintain the civil revision petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the civil revision petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as he has impugned the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department on the ground of fraud committed by his counsel in collusion with the opponent party and in this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon decision [A.Shameem Ahmed and other vs. A.Mohammed Hashim, 2015 1 CTC 156]. Accordingly, the matter had been listed before the Court for further orders.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court that even though, the appeal remedy is available under H.R. & C.E. Act, as against the impugned order, still as the petitioner had taken the plea of fraud committed by his counsel in collusion with the opponent party so as to defeat his right in the matter, according to him, the civil revision petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in support of the same, the above cited decision as well as another decision [Bithika Mazumdar and another vs. Sagar Pal and others, 2017 2 SCC 748] are relied upon. However, it is found that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable.