JUDGMENT :

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 reject a plaint?

3. Short factual compass giving rise to the issue is as follows: Appellants are the legal heirs i.e. wife and daughters of one Kathiresan (since deceased). Kathiresan purchased the nanja suit land from his own funds in the name of the respondent i.e. his nephew. He had done so on astrological advice. During his lifetime, Kathiresan was in possession of the suit land and thereafter appellants claim to be in possession of the said land. After the death of Kathiresan, disputes broke out between the appellants on one hand and sisters of Kathiresan on the other, in respect of ownership of the suit land and other businesses. The respondent, who is the son of one of the sisters of late Kathiresan, initiated negotiations for sale of the suit land. This prompted the appellants to file O.S. No. 1087 of 2018¹ [Hereinafter ‘the present suit’] seeking a declaration regarding title and consequential injunction against the respondent from encumbering the suit land. Other lands purchased by Kathiresan from his own funds in the name/joint name with other family members, were the subject matter of another O.S. No. 201 of 2018² [Hereinafter ‘the other suit’] instituted by the appellants.

4. Respondent took out petitions³ [CRP (MD) 125 of 2019 in O.S. No. 201 of 2018 and CRP (MD) 210 of 2019 in O.S. No. 1087 of 2018] under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court praying for rejection of plaint in both the suits.

5. High Court by the impugned order, inter-alia, rejected the plaint in the present suit, holding the suit is barred by law i.e. Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.⁴ [In short ‘Benami Act’] With regard to the other suit the High Court was of the view the suit was not barred under the Benami Act and declined the relief.

6. Appellants have challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to reject the plaint in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

7. Heard Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Baskaran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel also assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Prabhakar contends the High Court erred in law invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to reject the plaint.

8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner.

9. Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.⁵ [In short ‘the Code’] For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. [Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538]

10. 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. 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.

11. In the present case, High Court has supervened the provisions of the Code when it rejected the