High Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Article 227 When Order 7 Rule 11 Remedy Exists: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the Madras High Court’s order striking off a civil plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court restored the suit to the file of the trial court and granted liberty to the defendants to seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The dispute arose from a suit for permanent injunction concerning immovable property, in which the defendants alleged that the plaintiff’s title documents were fabricated and sought striking off of the plaint directly before the High Court. The Supreme Court held that when a specific statutory remedy is available under the CPC, supervisory jurisdiction ought not to be invoked.
The appeal arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the original plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of certain immovable property described by specific survey numbers and patta details. The plaintiff pleaded that the property had been purchased by his mother under a registered sale deed in 1975, that she died intestate, and that he, as sole legal heir, inherited the property and secured mutation in revenue records. He alleged that the defendants, claiming to be relatives of the original owner, attempted to trespass and obstruct fencing of the land.
The defendants filed a written statement disputing the sale transaction and contending that the certified copy of the sale deed was fabricated and pertained to another document. They asserted title in themselves based on earlier sale deeds and claimed possession and enjoyment of the property. They further contended that the suit was fraudulent. Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution, the defendants approached the High Court, relying on Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to strike off the plaint. The High Court allowed the petition and struck off the plaint.
The Court observed, “Article 227 is perceived to be a custodian of justice, which is in the nature of extraordinary supervisory powers, discretionary in nature.” It further observed, “The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to halt and the foundation of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.”
The Court recorded that, “It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors.” It also observed, “The jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised ‘as the cloak of an appeal in disguise.’”
On the availability of statutory remedy, the Court stated, “Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and Order VII Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code.” It further stated, “This statutory scheme cannot be upended by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint.”
Referring to alternative remedies, the Court observed, “Wherever the proceedings are under the Civil Procedure Code and the forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court… from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution.” It further recorded, “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.”
On Order VI Rule 16, the Court observed, “Evidently, this provision deals with the striking out of a part or a section of the pleading…” and stated, “It would be stretching beyond the logic of law to interpret and imply that Order VI Rule 16 can be utilized and employed for striking down the entire plaint.”
The Court stated, “For all the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the view that 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 impugned judgment and order of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside.”
“As a result, the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Madras in CRP No. 3197 of 2024 and CMP No. 17106 of 2024 striking off the plaint of Original Suit No. 93 of 2020 before the Court of District Munsif, Tambaram, is hereby set aside.”
“The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the suit is restored to its original file and parties are directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings on 16.02.2026 without awaiting further notice. Liberty is reserved for the defendants to file application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, to be considered strictly in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.t., AOR Ms. Abreeda Banu, Adv. Ms. Rachel Sara
For the Respondents: 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.
Case Title: P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 121
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
