The Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. “…once the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria....
The Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
“…once the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint.”, observed a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria.
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant seeking a permanent injunction, claiming ownership over the suit property by way of inheritance. The defendants contested the claim, alleging that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was fabricated and that the suit itself was fraudulent.
Instead of filing an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defendants directly approached the High Court by invoking Article 227. Accepting the defendants' contentions, the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction, examined the allegations of fraud, and proceeded to strike off the plaint in its entirety.
Aggrieved by this approach, the plaintiff moved the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria held that the High Court committed an error in allowing the Writ Petition, even when an alternative remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was available.
“Availability of an alternative civil remedy and/or under the CPC shall be treated as complete and near total bar on the High Court to venture to invoke and exercise its power available under Article 227 of the Constitution, except where exercise of supervisory jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary.”, the court said.
“…High Court committed a manifest error in exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike down the plaint. It ought to have asked the defendant to take recourse to, in accordance with law, when specific provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the nature of Order VII Rule 11.”, the court held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored to its original file, and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings. Liberty was granted to the Respondent/defendant to seek a remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 227 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 — Supervisory Jurisdiction vs. Statutory Remedy — The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off a plaint when a specific statutory remedy for rejection of the plaint exists under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC - The existence of an alternative remedy under the CPC acts as a "near total bar" against the exercise of powers under Article 227 - Noted that Order VI Rule 16, which pertains to striking out specific "pleadings" (parts or sections), cannot be utilized as a tool to strike down an entire plaint - Supervisory power is intended to keep subordinate courts within their bounds, not to serve as an "appeal in disguise" or to circumvent statutory law - Key Principles held – i. Alternative Remedy as a Bar - Where a specific remedy is provided under the CPC, the High Court should, as a matter of discipline and prudence, desist from exercising its power of superintendence; ii. Factual Inquiry - Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 often requires factual inquiries (e.g., disclosure of cause of action, valuation disputes) which are inappropriate for summary determination under Article 227; iii. Scope of Order VI Rule 16 - This provision is for removing unnecessary, scandalous, or vexatious matters within a pleading, not for the wholesale dismissal of a suit – Appeal allowed. [Relied on Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 32; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538; Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423; State vs. Navjot Sandhu (2003) 6 SCC 641; Paras 6-11]
Cause Title: P.SURESH VS. D.KALAIVANI & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 116
Click here to download judgment
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.t., AOR Ms. Abreeda Banu, Adv. Ms. Rachel Sara James, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv. Mr. R Gowrishankar, Adv. Ms. G Dhivyasri, Adv. Mr. Naanchil J Deekshith, Adv.