Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction — Availability of Specific Remedy under CPC — Near Total Bar
(Paras 5 to 9)
Where a specific statutory remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint, the High Court ought not to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the plaint. The availability of such remedy under the CPC constitutes a near total bar to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, except in rare and exceptional cases involving grave miscarriage of justice.
Article 227 — Scope and Limits — Not an Appellate or Corrective Jurisdiction
(Paras 5.1 to 5.7, 7)
The power of superintendence under Article 227 is supervisory and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and with judicial discipline. It is not meant to correct mere errors or to function as an appellate forum. It cannot be exercised as a cloak of appeal in disguise or to supplant statutory remedies expressly provided under the CPC.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Rejection of Plaint — Statutory Grounds — Factual Inquiry Involved
(Paras 6.2 to 6.2.3)
Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides specific and enumerated grounds for rejection of plaint. Determination of such grounds ordinarily involves consideration of factual aspects. Where such statutory mechanism exists, the High Court cannot bypass it by exercising Article 227 jurisdiction to strike off the plaint.
Order VI Rule 16 CPC — Striking Out Pleadings — Limited Scope — Cannot Be Used to Strike Entire Plaint
(Paras 6.1 to 6.4.1)
Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits striking out unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or abusive pleadings. It does not empower the court to strike down the entire plaint. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is distinct from striking out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16. The latter cannot be invoked to justify striking off the plaint through Article 227.
Civil Disputes Involving Title — Disputed Questions of Fact — Inappropriate for Article 227 Interference
(Paras 6.3 to 6.3.2)
Title disputes and civil controversies ordinarily involve disputed questions of fact requiring trial and evidence. The High Court ought not to entertain Article 227 petitions in routine civil matters such as property disputes, particularly where factual adjudication is necessary.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, claiming possession and enjoyment of the suit property based on inheritance from his mother, who had allegedly purchased the property through a registered sale deed of 1975.
The defendants disputed the sale transaction, alleging fabrication and fraud, and contended that the certified copy of the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff pertained to another transaction. They claimed title and possession in themselves.
Instead of filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial court for rejection of plaint, the defendants approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing a Civil Revision Petition. The High Court, upon examining the material, recorded findings that the sale deed was forged, that the suit was fraudulent, and that continuation of the suit was unnecessary. Consequently, it struck off the plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court examined whether such invocation of Article 227 was legally permissible when a specific statutory remedy existed under the CPC.
The Court reiterated settled principles governing Article 227 jurisdiction, drawing support from precedents including:
-
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
-
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society
-
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath
-
K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan
The Court emphasized that Article 227 is not meant to substitute statutory remedies. Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides specific grounds for rejection of plaint, and the defendants ought to have invoked that provision before the trial court.
The Court further clarified that Order VI Rule 16 CPC, which permits striking out pleadings, cannot be stretched to justify striking down the entire plaint. Rejection of plaint and striking out pleadings are conceptually and legally distinct.
Since the dispute involved questions of title and allegations of fraud, factual adjudication through trial was necessary. The High Court, by recording findings of forgery and fraud under Article 227, effectively assumed a role akin to an appellate court, which is impermissible.
The Supreme Court held that availability of alternative remedy under the CPC must be treated as a near total bar against invocation of Article 227 in civil matters governed by the Code.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where the Code of Civil Procedure provides a specific remedy, particularly under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint, the High Court cannot exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the plaint. Article 227 jurisdiction is exceptional, supervisory and not to be invoked to bypass or supplant statutory remedies. The existence of alternative remedy under the CPC constitutes a near total bar to such exercise.
RESULT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 03.06.2025 striking off the plaint, restored the suit to the file of the trial court, and granted liberty to the defendants to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to be decided in accordance with law. There was no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment