A KESAVAN Vs. MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was plaintiff in O.S.No. 1233 of 1993 on the file of the Sub-court, Madurai. The suit was for a direction to the University to pay a sum of Rs.1, 51, 500 with interest at 12% p.a. by way of compensation and damages. As many as five issues were framed by the Sub-court. They are:

(2.) WITHOUT resorting to file an appeal as provided under Section 96 read with Order 41, C.P.C., petitioner has chosen to file this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for an order to set aside the judgment and decree.

(3.) THE third reference cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Janakiraman v. Umadevi, 1999 (1) M.L.J. 276 wherein a learned Judge of this court has taken the view that it is well settled that a certiorari will lie provided requisite grounds exist, although a right of appeal has been conferred by the statute. When injustice is patent and there is miscarriage of justice, technical objections cannot be considered at all. THE revision arose out of an order upholding the obstruction making the decree in executable. THE learned Judge held that an appeal is available under Order 27, Rule 97 of C.P.C. THE learned judge found that the order of eviction was obtained after nine years. Asking the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal will amount to doing another injustice that where there is a grave dereliction of duty and where there is flagrant abuse of process, and violation of principles of natural justice, the power under Article 227 can be exercised. Here again, I find the judgment will not be of assistance to the petitioner. This is not a case where at the execution stage the decree is made inexecutable and that there is a miscarriage of justice and where there is a grave dereliction of duty by abuse of process of court. On the contracy, there are a series of pronouncements by the Supreme Court as well as other High Courts on the applicability of Article 226 when there is an appeal remedy. Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar K.R. Ramasamy sugar mills v. Farred Banoo, 1997 (1) C.T.C. 186 is a case where it was held that no appeal lies against the order of State Consumer Forum and hence, revision under Article 227 was maintained. In Manek Custodji v. Sarfaz Ali. A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2446, the Supreme Court held that when the respondent had clearly a legal remedy available to him by way of an appeal against the decree of a city civil court and that remedy was not only adequate, but was more comprehensive than the one under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is true that despite the existence of an alternative remedy, the High Court may interfere in favour of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, but can be only in extraordinary cases. It is not proper for the High Court to entertain an application under Article 227 against the decree passed by a Subordinate court when the procedure under laws allows an appeal against it. THE jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is an extraordinary jurisdiction, which is to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases, and it is not to be exercised as if it were as appellate jurisdiction or as if it gave unfettered and unrestricted power to the High Court to do whatever it liked.