ORDER
R. Ramanujam, 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 Interlocutory Appplications 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 They are withdrawn the same at the advice of the elders and to have maintain the amicable relationship with defendants who are their kith and kin.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 (1 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. 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 (2 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 KHADIR3) 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.