ORDER
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.12.1998 passed in I.A. No. 1000 of 1998 in O.S. No. 435 of 1989, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, by which the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
2. The facts of the case in brief giving rise to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by third parties to the suit (O.S. No. 435 of 1989) are as follows:
Praga Tools Officers Co-operative Housing Society filed O.S. No. 435 of 1989 against Yousuf Ali Gazi and 35 others (R2 to R37 herein) for specific performance agreements dated 12.7.1985. The suit schedule property comprises land bearing Sy. No. 36 admeasuring Ac.19-10 guntas situated at Old Bowenpally village, Rajendra Nagar, R.R. District. The petitioners herein filed I.A. NO. 1000 of 1998 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to get themselves impleaded as defendants 37 to 40. The second petitioner has given his sworn affidavit in support of the said petition. It is averred in the affidavit that late N. Balaram, the father of the petitioners was a protected tenant over agricultural land bearing survey No. 17/1 correspondent new S. No. 36 situated at Bowenpally village, Balanagar, R.R. District. The said N. Balaram died leaving the petitioners and another by name Narsimha as his legal descendants and thereby they succeed to his tenancy rights. They filed an application dated 19.8.99 before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal and obtained succession certificate of protected tenancy rights in respect of land bearing S. No. 36 situated at Bowenpally village, Balanagar, R.R. District to an extent of Ac.10-20 guntas in their favour under Sec. 40(2) of A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 under proceedings dated 23.12.1989. Thus, the competent authority recognized the petitioners as protected tenants of the land bearing S. No. 36 admeasuring Ac.10.20 guntas being the legal heirs of the original protected tenant. The petitioners came to know that R1 society (plaintiff) filed the suit for specific performance basing on the agreements of sale allegedly executed by defendants 1 to 19. The petitioners being the protected tenants over the suit land are entitled to the first option of purchase of the same. The land-holders are forbidden from entering into any sale transaction with third parties without offering the land first to the protected tenants. The landholders never followed the mandatory provisions of A.P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 before entering into alleged suit sale transactions with R1 society (plaintiff). Since the rights claimed by the petitioners are inseparable from the suit land, adjudication of any issues in the suit without their being parties thereto will be incomplete and inconclusive. Therefore, they are just and necessary parties to the suit proceedings.
3. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application of the petitioners. The counter averments in brief are that the provisions of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 do not apply to the suit lands since they come within the ambit of Urban Area Development Act. The efforts made by the petitioners to obtain possession of the suit land through revenue authorities proved to be futile since their application filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal for restoration of the possession ended in dismissal on 23.2.1991. Therefore, the petitioners are not proper and necessary parties to the suit.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing counsel for both the parties, dismissed the application on the following grounds:
1) The dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners before the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession of the land vide proceedings dated 23.02.1991;
2) Inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC though the petitioners knew of the filing of the suit in the year 1991 itself;
3) The finding recorded by MRO in proceedings dated 23.2.1991 that the lands are covered under Urban Area Development Act and which finding the petitioners did not choose to question by taking appropriate steps.
5. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by an order dated 11.12.1998 and as on the date of the dismissal of their application, they had a remedy of filing a revision questioning the order of dismissal passed in I.A. No. 1000 of 1998. S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended does not now permit a revision petition being filed against the impugned order. The reason is that the order of trial court passed either way would not have the effect of finally disposing of the suit or other proceedings. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case is taken away by the proviso inserted under sub-section (1) of section 115 of the CPC. The amendment is based on the Malimath Committee’s recommendations. The committee was of the opinion that the expression employed in section 115 CPC, which enables interference in revision on the ground that the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made, left open wide scope for the exercise of the revisional power with all types of interlocutory orders and this was substantially contributing towards delay in the disposal of cases. The committee did not favour denuding the High Court of the power of revision but strongly felt that the power should be suitably curtailed. The effect of the erstwhile clause (b) of the proviso, being deleted and a new proviso having been inserted, is that the revisional jurisdiction, in respect of an interlocutory order passed in a trial or other proceedings, is substantially curtailed. A revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the requirement of the proviso is satisfied.
6. For the reasons best known to the petitioners themselves, they did not choose to avail the remedy available to them as on the date of impugned order. The petitioners after a long lapse of nearly six years questioned the impugned order by filing this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. During the interregnum period some third parties claiming to be the legal heirs of the protected tenants filed I.A. No. 299 of 2002 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to get themselves impleaded as defendants in the suit. The trial court dismissed both the applications by an order dated 18.1.2003. The petitioners therein filed C.R.P. No. 688 and 690 of 2003. This court by an order dated 10-6-2003 allowed C.R.P. No. 690 of 2003 and permitted the petitioners therein to come on record as D38 to D42. Probably that prompted the present petitioners to approach this court by filing this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the findings recorded in the impugned order are illegal and contrary to the material on record and therefore the impugned order is required to be quashed by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that mere delay in filing the revision seeking rectification of error apparent on the face of record in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not a ground to refuse the relief prayed for. As no revision lies against the impugned order u/s 115 CPC as amended by Act 46 of 1999, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set right the order which is illegal and contrary to the material on record. The other submission of him is that the revision filed by the persons similarly placed to that of the petitioners have been allowed by this court in C.R.P. No. 690 of 2003 and therefore this revision also deserves to be allowed. In elaborating his arguments he submits that the present petitioners are claiming as legal heirs of Balaram and whereas the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 690 of 2003 have claimed as legal heirs of Potchaiah. The applications filed by the legal heirs of Potchaiah to get themselves impleaded as defendants in O.S. No. 435 of 1989 ended in dismissal on 18.1.2003. They carried the matter in revision to this Court and this Court by an order dated 10-6-2003 allowed the revision and permitted them to come on record as D38 to D42. It is his submission that the case of the petitioners stands on the same footing as that of petitioners in C.R.P. No. 690 of 2003 and therefore they are entitled to come on record as defendants in O.S. No. 435 of 1989 and since any decision rendered in the suit has a direct bearing on their tenancy rights over the property. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI, .
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for R1/plaintiff submits that the petitioners having failed to file revision under section 115 of CPC against the impugned order cannot now be permitted to file revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. What he means to say is that as on the date of passing of the impugned order, there was a remedy available to the petitioners to question the impugned order by filing revision since the provisions of amended CPC came into force w.e.f. 1-7-2002. He further submits that the petitioners knew that their application seeking restoration of the possession of the property has been dismissed by the revenue authorities on 23.2.1991. They chose to file I.A. No. 1000 of 1998 in O.S. No. 435 of 1989 before the trial court after nearly seven years of the dismissal of their application before the Mandal Revenue Officer to get them impleaded as defendants. Even after the dismissal of the said I.A., they did not chose to question the orders by filing revision under section 115 of CPC and therefore the petitioner cannot now be permitted to file the revision by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this distance of time. It is also submitted by him that as on the date of the impugned order, the petitioners had a legal remedy available to them by way of filing revision under section 115 of CPC, but they did not chose to avail the same and hence they cannot be permitted to file revision questioning the impugned order by invoking the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in MANECK CUSTODJI v. SARAFAZALI, .
9. Before dwelling on the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to refer the year of filing of the suit, date of order passed by the MRO where under the application filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of possession of the land over which they claim tenancy rights ended in dismissal, the date of filing of application by petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission of the Court to come on record as defendants in the suit and the date on which the petitioners filed revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
a) R1/plaintiff filed the suit against Yousuf Ali Gazi and 35 others in the year 1989;
b) MRO dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking restoration of the possession of the lands under proceedings dated 23.2.1991;
c) The petitioners filed I.A. No. 1000 of 1998 in O.S. No. 435 of 1989 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to get themselves impleaded as defendants 37 to 40 on 23.6.1998;
d) The application filed by the petitioners to get themselves impleaded as defendants ended in dismissal on 11.12.1998; and
e) The petitioners filed C.R.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 25.3.2004.
It is explicit from the above sequence of events that there is abnormal delay on the part of the petitioners in filing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to get them impleaded as defendants after dismissal of their application before the MRO for restoration of the possession. There is also abnormal delay in filing the revision against the impugned order. The remedy of filing civil revision under S.115 of CPC could have been availed by the petitioners since they had such a remedy as on the date of the impugned order. But, that remedy is not now available to the petitioners because of the amendment made in S.115 of CPC by Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 which came into effect from 1-7-2002. The Supreme Court in the first cited decision after considering the earlier decisions summed up its conclusions in a nut shell are hereunder:
“Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as here- under:-
(1) Amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 in section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction – by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction – by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self- evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
In the second cited decision the Supreme Court held that the High Court does not ordinarily in exercise of its discretion, entertain a special civil application under Art.227 of the Constitution where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to the applicant. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution is an extra-ordinary jurisdiction which is to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases and it is not to be exercised as if were an appellate jurisdiction or as if it gave unfettered and unrestricted power to the High Court to do whatever it liked. It is explicit from the sequence of events detailed above vide para (7) that by the date of the impugned order the petitioners had a remedy to file revision under section 115 of CPC. They did not chose to avail the said remedy and allowed the order to remain in force for more than five years. It was only on 25.3.2004 the petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Delay defeats equity is a well known principle of jurisprudence. In these circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of latches on the part of the petitioners.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order dated 11.12.1998 passed in I.A. No. 1000 of 1998 in O.S. No. 435 of 1989, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. No costs.