- (1.) The petitioner is the sole defendant in O.S. No. 291 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupur. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. The respondent claims to be an association known as "Tirupur Railway Station, Daily Commuters' Association". The said association/plaintiff has filed the suit for the following relief: (a) declaring that the classification of the Tirupur Railway Station parking area as Grade 'A' as illegal, arbitrary, excessive and void. (b) Consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from calling for tender in respect of the Vehicle Parking area at Tirupur Railway station on the classification as 'A' Grade on 07.12.2006 as published in the tender notice No. J/C 300/P/VOL-V dated 06.11.2006. Along with the said suit, the respondent filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 1273 of 2006 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent from calling for tender to lease out the vehicle parking area at Tirupur Railway Station. An order of temporary injunction was granted by the trial court on 05.12.2006 and it was periodically extended till 19.04.2007. On 19.04.2007, it was extended until further orders. However, I.A. No. 1273 of 2006 was closed on 11.07.2011 on the ground that the suit itself was ripe for trial. A contempt application was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein in I.A. No. 1364 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 14.09.2011. Because of the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the trial of the suit could not be taken up. At that stage, the respondent again filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 1574 of 2011 seeking to reopen I.A. No. 1273 of 2006. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge allowed the said application, by order dated 09.01.2012, as a result the trial could not be taken up again. At that stage, the petitioner has come up with this civil revision petition challenging the order in I.A. No. 1574 of 2011 dated 09.01.2012 reopening the interlocutory application in I.A. No. 1273 of 2006. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.
(2.) Though the challenge in this civil revision petition is only to the order made in I.A. No. 1574 of 2011, during the course of argument, since this court had doubt about the very maintainability of the suit, exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court invited the counsel on either side to advance their arguments in respect of the maintainability of the suit itself.
(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that classification of a railway station parking area under various grades is a policy matter of the Southern Railways and the same will not give rise to any civil litigation. The learned counsel would nextly contend that the petitioner has got nothing to do with either parking area of the railway station or with the tender to be floated by the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would nextly point out that this is not a public interest litigation, nor the said suit has been filed in representative capacity. The learned counsel would further submit that Section 80 of CPC was also not complied with.;