ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court in C.R.P.(MD) No. 2117 of 2022 dated 13.11.2024.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents.

5. The High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction held that the suit is not maintainable.

6. The issue arising for consideration in the present case is covered by the recent decision of this Court in K. Valarmathi & Ors. vs Kumaresan reported in 2025 INSC 606. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference:

'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[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 v. 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 plaint on the ground it was barred by law. In doing so, the High Court not only substituted itself as the court of first instance but also rendered nugatory a valuable right to appeal available to the appellant had the issue been adjudicated by the trial court in the first place.

12. We are conscious appellate remedy against rejection of plaint is not available if the High Court had in its revisional jurisdiction reversed the order of trial court and rejected the plaint. In Frost (International) Ltd. vs. Milan Developers, (2022) 8 SCC 633 this Court observed as follows:-

'31. No doubt rejection of a plaint is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2)CPC and an appeal lies from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from a decision of such court. However, it must be borne in mind that when a Revisional Court rejects a plaint, in substance, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 is being allowed. Under such circumstances, the remedy by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could be availed and Respondent 1/the plaintiff has resorted to the said remedy in the instant case; although if the plaint had been rejected by the trial court i.e. court of original jurisdiction, it would have resulted in a right of appeal under Section 96 CPC.'

13. These observations in Frost (supra) are not relevant for the matter in issue as the High Court in the present case had not exercised its supervisory power to correct a jurisdictional error of the trial court but usurped its original jurisdiction to reject the plaint.

14. Procedural law provides the necessary legal infrast