S.M. Hussain vs The IX Asst. Judge, City Civil Court and Another

Motilal B. Naik, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by an employee."

Petitioner is an employee of the second respondent - M/s. Siemens Limited. By an order dated 19-9-1994, the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to Manipal Branch in Karnataka State. The petitioner was directed to join duties with effect from 3-10-1994. Questioning the said order, the petitioner had instituted a suit in O.S.No. 5193 of 1994 before the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad - first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the lower Court"). Along with the said suit, the petitioner also filed I.A. No. 1373 of 1994 seeking ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the said application, a detailed counter was filed by the second respondent-Company opposing the relief. The Second respondent had taken a categorical stand in the counter that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner are beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court both in regard to the subject matter as well as jurisdiction. It was also stated in the counter that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the lower Court. Basing on these contentions, the lower Court examined the entire aspect on a consideration of the series of decisions referred to by the parties and dismissed the suit on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction and returned the plaint to the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the said order of the lower Court in I.A.No. 1373 of 1994 in O.S.No. 5193 of 1994 dated 20-12-1994, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard Sri G. Bikshapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, learned senior counsel for the second respondent.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is vested with the power of superintendence over all the Courts which includes the Tribunals also.

It is settled law that the power of superintendence ought to be exercised in exceptional cases. The essential purpose of use of this power is only in exceptional and grave cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. Under Article 227, High Court cannot assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law. There should be a question of assumption of excessive jurisdiction, or refusal to exercise jurisdiction, or irregularity, or legality in procedure, or breach of a rule of natural justice or an error apparent on the face of the record. This proposition is evident from a decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanarain v. Mallikarjan, AIR I960 SC187.

The word ''Superintendence'' in Article 227 includes administrative as well as judicial superintendence. The power is not restricted to cases of non-exercise or illegal exercise of jurisdiction but extends also to cases where there has been an obvious miscarriage of justice because a Court or a tribunal has approached the matter entrusted to it in an arbitrary or despotic manner or against the rules of natural justice. But the power cannot be exercised to disturb a decision of a Court merely because it has misconceived a point of law or come to a wrong decision of the facts. For purposes of Article 227, the High Court is neither a Court of appeal nor a Court of revision. It can interfere only in those cases where the decisions are opposed to natural justice.

In this case, the lower Court rejected the suit on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. As against such rejection, the CPC has made necessary provisions to meet the contingency arising out of this situation by way of appeals.

As I said earlier, the interference by this Court under Article 227 is only in exceptional cases where the impugned order of the lower Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

In this case, the facts and circumstances do not indicate that the rejection of the plaint of the petitioner by the lower Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this Civil Revision.