SADASIVAM Vs. KASILINGAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of a judgment of the learned Subordinate, Panruti dated 29.08.2011 made in C.M.A. No. 6 of 2011, which was in turn filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Panruti dated 27.4.2011 made in I.A. No. 20 of 2011 in O.S. No. 8 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti. The above said suit was filed for declaration that they have easementary right over the passage to reach their property. The passage admittedly runs through the property of the respondent herein/defendant. Along with the suit, they filed an application in I.A. No. 20 of 2011 for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit not to prevent them from using the passage. The learned trial Judge, by order dated 27.04.2011 allowed the said petition and granted interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The said order was challenged before the lower appellate Court, namely the Sub-Court, Panruti in C.M.A. No. 611 of 2011. The learned Subordinate Judge, panruti, after hearing, allowed the said appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court dated 27.04.2011 by his judgment dated 29.08.2011. Impugning the said judgment, the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the original suit.

(2.) Though Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner argued on the merits of the Civil Revision Petition, Mr. R. Gururaj, learned counsel for the respondent confined his arguments regarding the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and did not canvass any point on the merits of the Civil Revision Petition, which would go to show that apart from his contention that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, he has got no valid point to be urged in the Civil Revision Petition in respect of the merits of the case.

(3.) In the above said background, this Court has to consider the question of maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. According to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, as against the judgment of the lower appellate Court dated 29.08.2011 made in C.M.A. No. 6 of 2011, a second appeal, namely a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal (CMSA) alone will lie and hence, the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of a revision is not proper and the revision thus filed is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The said contention is raised referring to Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 108 simply says that the provisions of Part VII relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals from appellate decrees and from orders made under the Civil Procedure Code or under any special law or local law in which a different procedure is not provided.