LAWS(MAD)-1969-4-14

R V GOPALAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On April 25, 1969
R.V.GOPALAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision proceeding arises under very singular circumstances, perhaps without any parallel in the cases that have come up in revisional jurisdiction before this court. O. S. No. 400 of 1966 on the file of the learned District Munsif, tiruchirapalli, was instituted by a plaintiff, on whose behalf Sri Baluswami has here submitted arguments before me, for a declaration that he (the plaintiff) belonged to the Tuluva Vellala community. In the affidavit, the plaintiff states that the said declaration was needed to be produced before the Public Service Commission with regard to the consideration of his claim for appointment. There was no defendant shown upon the record, and what the learned District Munsif did, after having taken up the suit for trial, was to call for objections by a kind of proclamation viz. beat of tom-tom, in the town. No one appeared in response to this proclamation, and the suit was decreed, after examining the plaintiff, on 13th April 1966. The declaration granted in the suit is a bare one to the effect that the plaintiff belonged to and was a member of a backward community, viz. Tuluva Vellala community, entitled to the rights and privileges recognised in favour of that community, as a backward class.

(2.) IT appears from the record that this matter has been taken up suo motu bv this court, after receiving a report from the learned District Judge, under Section 115. Civil P. C.

(3.) SRI Baluswami raised an interesting argument, at the threshold; that such a revision proceeding may be without jurisdiction. He fully conceded the power of this Court to act suo motu in revisional jurisdiction. The reason alleged bv him was that Section 115. Civil P. C. itself makes the point explicit that the case should be one decided by some court subordinate to this court, "and in which no appeal lies thereto". It is alleged that this was an ordinary decree in a civil suit. A regular appeal is provided for by the processual law, which fact, would bar revisional jurisdiction.