{"id":257979,"date":"2010-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-01T10:24:49","modified_gmt":"2016-11-01T04:54:49","slug":"rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 23\/07\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nC.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1620 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\n\n1.Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam\n2.Rev.M.G.Manickam\n3.Rev.Peter Devadoss,\n4.Rev.Samuel\n5.Rev.Stephen Lionel\n6.Rt.Rev.Jayapaul David\n                           ... Petitioners\/D3,6,8,10,12 & 1\n\nvs\n\n1.A.D.J.C.Manohar\n2.Dharmaselan\n3.Jayam Ponniah\n4.Rev.D.Ebenezer\n5.REv.A.H.L.Billy\n6.Rev.Packiyanathan\n7.Rev.Vedatanagam\n8.Rev.Appadurai Gnanaraj\n                           ... Respondents\/D2,4,5,7,9 & 11\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227<\/a> of Constitution\nof India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.650 of 2007, on the file of the\nPrincipal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Petitioners     ... Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram\n^For 1st Respondent  ... Mr.M.Vallinanagam\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tHeard both sides<\/p>\n
\t2.The defendants 1,3,6,8,10,12 in O.S.No.650 of 2007, on the file of the
\nPrincipal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, are the revision petitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.This civil revision is filed under Article 227<\/a> of Constitution of India,
\nto strike off the plaint in O.S.650 of 2007.  O.S.No.650 of 2007 was filed by
\nthe respondents 1 and 2 in the representative capacity, representing for the
\nTirunelveli Diocese for declaring that the election alleged to have been held to
\nthe 6th Church Councils of the Diocese of Tirunelveli on 04.12.2007 is null and
\nvoid and not binding upon the members of the Tirunelveli Diocese and for
\nconsequential permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners,
\nMr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram contended that the suit is a abuse of process of law as
\nthe 2nd plaintiff along with 57 persons filed a suit in O.S.No.2898 of 2008, on
\nthe file of the 2nd Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the Church of
\nSouth India, represented by its moderator and the Diocese of Tirunelveli(CSI),
\nrepresented by its Bishop, for declaration that the plaintiffs in that suit have
\nbeen duly elected as office bearers of the Church Council and Diocesan Council
\nof the 2nd defendant Diocese, in their respective posts as detailed in the
\nannexure below and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the 2nd
\ndefendant in that suit from interfering in any way the plaintiffs discharging
\ntheir duties and performing their duties.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision
\npetitioners that the in suit filed before the 2nd Assistant Civil Civil Court,
\nChennai, in O.S.No.2898 of 2008, the plaintiffs contended that on the third
\nphase of the election conducted on 04.12.2007. Mr.A.D.J.C.Thinakar, won in the
\nelection and also was declared as such on 04.12.2007 and thereafter, the fourth
\nand final phase of election was held on 21.12.2007 for the post of Lay
\nSecretary, Vice Chairman and Clergy Secretary and the results were published and
\noffice bearers are discharging their functions. In that suit O.S.No.2898 of
\n2008, the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.650 of 2007 was the 55th plaintiff and he has
\ntaken the stand that election was validly held on 04.12.2007 and thereafter, the
\nfourth and final phase of election were held on 21.12.2007 and the office
\nbearers were elected and having taken such plea in O.S.No.2898 of 2008, the plea
\ntaken in O.S.No.650 of 2007 that the election held on 04.12.2007 is null and
\nvoid, amounts to abuse of process of law.  Therefore, the plaint is to be struck
\noff.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.On the other hand, Mr.M.Vallinayagam, the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe 1st respondent submitted that the present revision invoking Article 227<\/a> of
\nConstitution of India is not maintainable.  The suit has been filed by two
\npersons, in the representative capacity and even assuming that the 2nd
\nplaintiff, Dharmaselan is the 55th plaintiff in the other suit, the suit filed
\nin O.S.650 of 2007 cannot be struck off, on that ground, as the said suit is
\nfiled in the representative capacity and in the suit in O.S.No.2898 of 2008 a
\ndeclaration is sought for to declare the election held on 04.12.2007 a valid one
\nand the present suit is for declaration that the election held on 04.12.2007 is
\nnot valid.  Therefore, ut the the most, both the cases can be tried together and
\nthat cannot a ground to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.650 of 2007 and no
\nreasons for striking off the plaint in O.S.No.650 of 2007 as laid down by this
\nHonourable Court and the Honourable Supreme Court have been made out and
\ntherefore, the application is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Before going into the merits of the case, I want to emphasis the power
\nof this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227<\/a>
\nof the Constitution of India. The circumstances under which, the Honourable High
\nCourt can exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India, has been elaborately discussed in the judgement reported
\nin (2003)6 SCC 675, in the case of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and
\nothers<\/a>, and in that case it has been held as follows: “Supervisory jurisdiction
\nunder Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate
\ncourts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has
\nassumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a
\njurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being
\nexercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice
\nor grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to
\nexercise its supervisory jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tSupervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an
\nalternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the
\nperson aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy
\nformulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the legislature in
\nexercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to
\nbe kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope
\nof accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and
\nprocrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of
\nproceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction
\nare to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial
\nconscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice
\nor grave injustice should occasion.”\n<\/p>\n
\t09.The Honourable Supreme Court in that judgement also sum up their
\nconclusions and held that “Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227<\/a> of the
\nConstitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds
\nof their jurisdiction.  When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction
\nwhich it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does
\nhave or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a
\nmanner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has
\noccasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tBe it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction,
\nnone is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following
\nrequirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face
\nof the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter
\ndisregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure
\nof justice has occasioned thereby.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction
\nare to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial
\nconscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice
\nor grave injustice should occasion.  Care, caution and circumspection need to be
\nexercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked
\nduring the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the
\nerror though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the
\nconclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there-against
\nand entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of
\nthe High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and\/or early disposal of the suit
\nor proceedings.  The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error
\nis such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of
\ncorrection at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of
\njustice or where such refusal itself would result prolonging of the lis.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will
\nnot convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or
\nevaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors
\nof mere formal or technical character.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In the judgement reported in AIR 1984 SC 38, in the case of Mohd. Yunus
\nvs. Mohd. Mustaqim<\/a>, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows “A mere
\nwrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction
\nof the High Court under Art. 227.<\/a> The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the
\nHigh Courts under Art. 227<\/a> of the Constitution is limited “to seeing that an
\ninferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority” and not
\nto correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of
\nlaw. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227<\/a>, the High Court does not
\nact as an Appellate Court or Tribunal.  It will not review or re-weigh the
\nevidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports
\nto be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.It has been held in the judgment reported in 2009(4) CTC 750, in the
\ncase of B.Shyamkumar vs. Francies George<\/a> that “there is no second opinion that
\nthe jurisdiction under Article 227<\/a> is not for the purpose of correcting a mere
\nquestion of fact. The jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate
\njurisdiction to set right all kinds of errors committed by the Subordinate
\nCourts. However when the Trial Court misconstrued a document and arrived at a
\nperverse conclusion, it would be open to this Court to correct such errors, as
\nit would amount to jurisdictional error.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, from the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
\naforesaid judgements, we will have to see whether invoking of extraordinary
\njurisdiction against the order passed under Order 39 R 1 is justified or not in
\nthis case.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In the judgment reported in (2003)6 SCC 675 in the case of Surya Devi
\nRai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others<\/a>, referred to above, it has been held that
\n“the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to
\nbe exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial
\nconscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice
\nor grave injustice should occasion.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Further, the Honourable Supreme Court has held in the reported judgment
\nAIR 2000 SC 3032 in the case of A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs.S.Chellappan<\/a> that “Now
\nwhat remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the
\npetition under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of when the party had two other
\nalternative remedies.  Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the
\nconstitutional powers of the High Court it is a well recognised principle which
\ngained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail
\nhimself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional
\nremedy.  Learned Single judge need not have entertained the revision petition at
\nall and the party affected by the interim ex-parte order should have been
\ndirected to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as it may,now it is
\nidle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the
\nrevision petition.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the judgement reported in 2007(3) CTC 604, in the case of Ajay
\nBansal vs. Anup Mehta and others<\/a>, it has been held as follows:- “Ordinarily, an
\nApplication under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India would not be
\nmaintainable where an Appeal lies.  An Appeal lay from the decree under Section
\n96 of the Code. When an Appeal could be filed, ordinarily, an Application under
\nArticle 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India would not be entertained.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15.In another judgement reported in 2007(3) LW 515, in the case of
\nGanapathy Subramanian vs.S.Ramalingam<\/a> & 23 others, it has been held that
\n“Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India confers on every High Court the power
\nof superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals through out the territory in
\nrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any Court or Tribunal
\nconstituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice
\nto the generality of such power, the High Court has been conferred with certain
\nspecific powers under clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution. It
\ncould be seen that the power of the superintendence so conferred on the High
\nCourt is administrative as well as judicial and is capable of being invoked at
\nthe instance of any person aggrieved.  The paramount consideration behind
\nvesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is to clear that
\npath of justice.  Such a power of superintendence is not subject to
\ntechnicalities of procedure or traditional fetters.  That power so conferred
\ncannot also be regarded as appeal or revisional jurisdiction and should not be
\nexercised in the garb or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227<\/a>
\nof the Constitution and hence, the Court has devised a self imposed rule and
\ndiscipline on this power. The supervisory jurisdiction can be refused to be
\nexercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of defending the suit or
\nfiling an appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved.  The Court
\nshall have regard to the legislative policy formulated on experience and
\nexpressed by enactments where the legislature in exercise of its wisdom has
\ndeliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from the
\nappellate or revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating conclusion of
\nthe proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by
\nsubjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way
\nof appeal or revision.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under
\nArticle 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India are extraordinary and discretionary
\npower as distinguished from ordinary statutory power.  No doubt, Article 227<\/a> of
\nthe Constitution conferred a right of superintendence over all Courts and
\nTribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised
\njurisdiction, but no corresponding right is conferred upon the litigant to
\ninvoke the jurisdiction as a matter of right.  In fact, the power under Article
\n227<\/a> of the Constitution of India casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the
\ninferior Courts and tribunals within the limits of its authority and that they
\ndo not cross the limit ensuring the performance of their duties in accordance
\nwith law conferring power within the ambit of the enactment treating such Court
\nand Tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of
\njurisdiction under this article unless the wrong is referable to grave
\ndereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and
\ntribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is seen from the afore-said judgments, when an effective and
\nefficacious appeal remedy is available to the parties, invocation of the
\nextraordinary jurisdiction under Art.227<\/a> is not maintainable. Therefore, when a
\nfinding has been given by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence that
\nfinding can be challenged only by invoking appeal remedy and the same cannot be
\nchallenged under Art.227<\/a> of Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In this case, except the fact that the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.650 of
\n2007 is also the 55th plaintiff in O.S.No.2898 of 2008, no point has been made
\nby the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the suit is
\nan abuse of process of law.  As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondents, the suit O.S.No.650 of 2007 is filed in a
\nrepresentative capacity and therefore, even deleting from the 2nd plaintiff from
\nthe suit in O.S.No.650 of 2007, the suit is maintainable, representing the
\nmembers of the Tirunelveli Diocese and therefore, on that ground, the suit
\ncannot be struck off. Further, in one suit O.S.No.2898 of 2008, the validity of
\nthe election, dated 04.12.2007 was sought to be declared as legal and also the
\nvalidity of the subsequent elections held thereafter and in the present suit
\nO.S.No.650 of 2007, the declaration is sought for is to declare the election
\ndated 04.02.2007 is  illegal.  Therefore, the issue in both the suits are one
\nand the same viz., the validity of the election held on 04.12.2007.  Therefore,
\nit cannot be stated that as the same issue is involved in O.S.No.650 of 2007,
\nthe suit is to be struck off.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Further, it is seen from the typed set of papers that O.S.No.2898 of
\n2008 was not filed in the representative capacity and 58 individuals filed the
\nsuit, who were elected as office bearers, according to the allegation made in
\nthe plaint. Further, O.S.No.2829 of 2008 was filed in later point time and
\nO.S.No.650 of 2007 was filed earlier and therefore, it cannot be stated that as
\nthe 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.650 of 2007 also happens to be one of the plaintiffs
\nin O.S.No.2898 of 2008, O.S.No.650 of 2008 is to be struck off for the simple
\nreason that O.S.No.650 of 2007 was filed in earlier point of time.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Considering the principles of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme
\nCourt referred to above, I do not find any merit in the submission of the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners to strike of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently,
\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Principal District Munsif,
\nTirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/07\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1620 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 1.Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam 2.Rev.M.G.Manickam 3.Rev.Peter Devadoss, 4.Rev.Samuel 5.Rev.Stephen Lionel 6.Rt.Rev.Jayapaul David … Petitioners\/D3,6,8,10,12 & 1 vs 1.A.D.J.C.Manohar 2.Dharmaselan 3.Jayam Ponniah 4.Rev.D.Ebenezer 5.REv.A.H.L.Billy 6.Rev.Packiyanathan 7.Rev.Vedatanagam 8.Rev.Appadurai […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-01T04:54:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T04:54:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2891,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T04:54:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-01T04:54:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T04:54:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010"},"wordCount":2891,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010","name":"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T04:54:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-r-v-s-s-vethanayagam-vs-a-d-j-c-manohar-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rev.R.V.S.S.Vethanayagam vs A.D.J.C.Manohar on 23 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257979"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257979\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}