Back
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Chithra – Appellant
Versus
Sasikumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revisional jurisdiction under article 227 (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. final decision to set aside high court ruling (Para 7 , 8) |
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:
(1) Striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Once specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is available, High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off ....
The judgment emphasizes the limitations and conditions for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The main legal point established is that the maintainability of a writ appeal depends on the invocation of specific jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow interference unless there is a manifest error or flagrant abuse of justice by the Administrative Tribunal.
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 and the need for supervisory correction in exercising jurisdiction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
