High Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Article 227 : Supreme Court

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. Cause Title: P.SURESH VS. D.KALAIVANI & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 116Click here to download judgmentAppearance: 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.

High Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Article 227 : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags