MANU/AP/0193/2002

Equivalent Citation: 2002(4)ALD319, 2002(3)ALT515, 2002(1)APLJ (HC ) 236, II(2002)DMC 679

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

Civil Revision Petition No. 2873 of 2001
Decided On: 28.01.2002
Appellants: M.M. Balvalli and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: The Hon. Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R. Ramanujum, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.M. Balvalli, Adv.
Case Note:
Civil - dismissal of suit - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - suit
filed by daughter of petitioner and her husband for perpetual injunction
restraining petitioner and his men from interfering into their peaceful
married life - plaintiff themselves filed memo stating that they were not
pressing suit - Family Court dismissed suit - petitioner-defendant
challenged Order of dismissal - held, no need to interfere with Order of
Family Court as there was no prejudice caused to any party.

ORDER
R. Ramanujum, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed
against the order of the Family Court, Hyderabad, dismissing O.S. No. 245 of 1999 as
not pressed.
2 . The petitioners herein are defendants 1 to 3 in the aforesaid suit. That suit was
filed by Mohini Madhukar Balvalli, who is no other than the daughter of the 1st
petitioner herein, and another by name Sayeed-ur-Rahman, who claims to have
married her, for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners 1 to 3 herein, i.e.,
defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, their men and agents from interfering and entering into
the peaceful married life of the plaintiffs at the premises bearing No. 19-2-362,
Doodhbowli, Palam Road, Hyderabad. Along with the said suit, an interlocutory
application was also filed seeking interim injunction restraining the petitioners
herein, their agents and men from interfering with the peaceful married life of the
respondent-plaintiffs.
3 . In that suit summons were issued to the petitioners-defendants, which were
received by them on 5-1-2000. On 19-1-2000 the petitioners appeared before the
Family Court. On that day, the suit was adjourned to 3-3-3000 for filing written
statement. Some time in February, 2000 the petitioners-defendants filed two

05-01-2022 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Commissioner

 Interlocutory Applications in the said suit, i.e., I.A. Nos. 247 and 248 of 2000,
seeking permission of the Court for the 1st defendant to represent the other
defendants in the suit. On 3-3-3000 the respondent-plaintiffs filed the following
memo in the said suit:
" It is submitted that the above case is filed against the defendants for
perpetual injunction by the plaintiffs herein. The defendants are parents and
in-laws to the plaintiffs herein. As per the advice of the elders and to have
amicable relationship with the defendants in future, the plaintiffs interested
to 'NOT PRESS' the suit O.S. No. 245 of 1999 against the defendants herein.
Hence, it is prayed that the suit O.S. No. 245/99 may be 'not pressed' in the
interest of justice".
Thereupon, considering the said memo, the Family Court passed the impugned order,
which is as under:
"Petitioners 1 and 2 present. D.1 to D.3 present in person. The petitioners 1
and 2 filed memo. They are withdrawn the same at the advice of the elders
and to have maintain the amicable relationship with defendants who are their
kith and kin. The petitioners also endorsed on the plaint they are not pressed
the suit. The D.1 opposed the withdrawing memo stating that he wants to
contest the matter when petitioners themselves not showing interest to
prosecute the matter. In view of their memo there is no meaning in keeping
pending the matter in Court. Anyhow, the defendant present and opposed the
withdrawing. The suit is dismissed as not pressed with costs".
Consequently, both the aforesaid I.As., were also dismissed on 3-3-3000 itself.
Challenging the correctness of the aforesaid order of dismissing the suit, Sri M.M.
Balvalli (1st petitioner herein), who appeared in person, argued at length, contending
that the Court below has grossly erred in dismissing the suit, that too, without
passing any orders on I.A. Nos. 247 and 248 of 2000 filed by them, even though they
have opposed the memo filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. Relying upon the decision
of the Supreme Court in STATE OF ASSAM V. BANSHIDHAR SHEWBHAGAVAN1) and
the decision of the Gauhati High Court in ARUN CHANDRA V. WAJID ALI2) he
contended that the impugned order of the Family Court amounts to abuse of the
power vested in it. He further submits that the Family Court should have allowed I.A.
Nos. 247 and 248 of 2000 and permitted the petitioners herein to cross-examine the
respondent-plaintiffs to establish the fact that the 2nd respondent has never married
the 1st respondent.
4 . I do not find any merit in any one of the aforesaid submissions. When the
plaintiffs themselves filed a memo, at the very threshold, categorically stating that
they are not pressing the suit, the Family Court has no other option but to dismiss
the same as not pressed. Since the suit itself was dismissed as not pressed, the
Family Court is right in dismissing I.A. Nos. 247 and 248 of 2000 as there was no
need to permit the 1st petitioner herein to represent the other petitioners-defendants
in the said suit.
5 . The decision of the Supreme Court in BANSHIDHAR SHEWBHAGAVAN (supra),
relied upon by the 1st petitioner, is not at all relevant to the facts and circumstances
of the case. In that case (in para 8 of the report) the Supreme Court has merely
reiterated the well-recognized principle that it would be abuse of power if a statutory
authority exercises the powers conferred upon it in bad faith or for collateral purpose.

05-01-2022 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Commissioner

 Such is not the case here. As already noted, the Family Court has dismissed the suit
filed by the respondent-plaintiffs when they do not want to press the same.
6 . Like wise, the decision of the Gauhati High Court in ARUN CHANDRA (supra) is
also not relevant. In that case, the principle that was reiterated is that if a person is
harmed by a mistake or omission of the Court, he should be restored to the position
he would have occupied but for the mistake. Such is not the case here.
7. Recently, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in OUSEPH MATHAI V. M.ABDUL
KHADIR and laid down that:
"4. It is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary
powers as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt Article
227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but
no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction
under the said article as a matter or right. In fact power under this article
casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals
within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits,
ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in
accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments
creating such courts and tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a
ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless the wrong is
referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the
subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party".
It is thus clear that the High Court should not intervene under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India merely because the order of the lower Court or Tribunal is
wrong unless it is established that the lower Court or Tribunal has been guilty of
grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of power, which has resulted in grave
injustice to any party.
8 . As already noted hereinabove, the order of the Family Court dismissing the suit,
when the respondent-plaintiffs themselves filed a memo categorically stating that
they were not pressing the same, is not wrong. Nor can it be termed as grave
dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of power. Further more, when the suit of the
respondent-plaintiffs was dismissed, as not pressed, at the very threshold before
issuing any orders against the petitioner-defendants, no prejudice or injustice was
caused to them.
9 . For all the above reasons, the revision petition fails and it is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

05-01-2022 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Commissioner