Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 131

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aravind Kumar, N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
P. Suresh - Appellant
Versus
D.Kalaivani & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20423 of 2025)
Decided On : 03-02-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.T., AOR Mr. Musthafa Atheeq, Adv. Ms. Rachel Sara James, Adv. Ms. Riya Nourin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv. Mr. R Gowrishankar, Adv. Ms. G Dhivyasri, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tiwari, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 plaint.
(2) Alternative remedy – Proposition that availability of alternative remedy shall be legitimately construed to displace exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court, is true not only for the purpose of exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution but also for the purpose of invoking Article 227 of Constitution.

Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 – Constitution of India – Article 227 – 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 plaint – When grounds for rejection of plaint, provided in statutory provision, require consideration of facts of the case, such issue should not be gone into by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution, which even otherwise is supposed to be exercised by Court sparingly and not just for the purpose of correcting purported errors – Overriding criteria in law is that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be applied to substitute remedy available specifically in CPC itself – High Court would not only discourage but desist from exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution in respect of a challenge for which a separate, distinct, and specific remedy or statutory provision is available under statute concerned – Availability of an alternative civil remedy and/or under CPC shall be treated as complete and near total bar on High Court to venture to invoke and exercise its power available under Article 227 of Constitution, except where exercise of supervisory jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary – Judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and suit restored to its original file. (Paras 6.2.3, 7.4, 9, 10 and 11)
(B) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Alternative remedy – Proposition that availability of alternative remedy shall be legitimately construed to displace exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court, is true not only for the purpose of exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution but also for the purpose of invoking Article 227 of Constitution – In the garb of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution, High Court is not expected to engulf specific statutory remedy or provision in law and become a supervisor over Court below or Tribunal, as the case may be – It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline and to insist that aggrieved party should take recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law. (Paras 7.2 and 7.3)
Facts of the case:
Could High Court entertain application invoking and exercising its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution, even where a specific remedial provision available in Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 relating to subject matter – issue is focal point arising to be addressed in present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Suit is restored to its original file and parties are directed to appear before 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.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether a High Court can exercise its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a plaint when a specific remedial provision under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), such as Order VII Rule 11, is available for rejecting a plaint (!) (!) .
The case involved an appeal by the original plaintiff against a High Court order that allowed a Civil Revision Petition and struck off the plaint, primarily on the grounds of alleged fraud and forged documents, which the High Court found to be established and thus exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the supervisory powers under Article 227 are extraordinary, supervisory, and discretionary, meant to be exercised sparingly and only when necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice, not as a routine measure (!) (!) (!) .
It was highlighted that the existence of specific statutory provisions, such as Order VII Rule 11, CPC, for rejection of a plaint, provides a complete and efficacious remedy, which the High Court should have utilized instead of invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute or bypass statutory remedies, especially when the legal grounds for rejection are well-defined within the CPC (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the High Court erred in relying on Order VI Rule 16, CPC, which pertains to striking out parts of pleadings, to justify striking off an entire plaint, as this provision is not intended for such purpose (!) (!) .
The principle was reaffirmed that when an alternative remedy under the CPC exists, the High Court should refrain from exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227 to interfere with the original proceedings unless exceptional circumstances justify it (!) (!) .
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, restored the suit to its original position, and directed the parties to proceed with the trial before the appropriate court, with liberty for the defendant to file an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, if desired (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of respecting statutory remedies and exercising supervisory jurisdiction with restraint and only in exceptional cases to uphold the rule of law and judicial discipline (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on this case.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, even where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) relating to the subject matter – issue is the focal point arising to be addressed in the present appeal.

2.1 What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant - original plaintiff, is the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras dated 03.06.2025 in CRP No. 3197 of 2024 and CMP No. 17106 of 2024, which were the proceedings of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution, whereby, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition and struck off the plaint in Original Suit No. 93 of 2020 before the Court of District Munsif, Tambaram.

3. Outlining the facts would be relevant to notice the case pleaded in the plaint. The suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram was for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and their agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. The suit property comprised of Survey No. 125/1A, Survey No. 125/1C, and Survey No. 230/1B, which was described in their specified boundaries of Patta No. 320.

3.1 The case of the plaintiff was that the land originally belonged to one Sambandam Chettiar, who sold the same to the mother of the appellant named Meena under a registered sale deed dated 20.10.1975, Document No. 3994 of 1975. The said Meena - wife of Paramasivam, was in exclusive possession of the suit property and she died intestate on 07.12.1985. It was further averred that the plaintiff as her sole legal heir inherited the property and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and further that the plaintiff got revenue records mutated in his favour in Patta No. 11941.

3.1.1 It was further averred in the plaint that the suit property, an open land, was to be bound by the fence. It was stated that at that time, defendant No. 2 trespassed and prevented the plaintiff from erecting the fence. It was averred that the defendants claimed to be the relatives of Sambandam Chettiar. The plaintiff stated that since the defendants threatened to encroach upon the suit property, the cause of action arose for instituting the Original Suit No. 93 of 2020.

3.2 In the written statement filed by the defendants, the transaction of sale in favour of the plaintiff’s mother Meena was disputed by contending that the sale document was fabricated. It was sought to be contended that the certified copy of the sale deed filed along with the plaint used to be the property of another document and further that the sale deed was not signed by the said Sambandam Chettiar. It was the case of the defendants that the document did not pertain to the suit sale but it was a mortgage deed executed by a third party.

3.2.1 It was then contended that the said Sambandam Chettiar and his mother owned the suit property which they had purchased in the years 1922 and 1928 under registered sale deeds, and that agricultural operations were carried out in the lands using the services of coolies. The defendants contended that in the year 1940, when their mother died, all the properties were inherited and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was stated that in the year 2020, the defendants tendered kist for the land covered under Patta No. 320, but the Village Administrative Officer refused to receive the same, stating that the ownership of the land/Patta had changed.

3.3 By raising the above and other contentions, the defendants put forward their case inter alia that the question of trespassing into the suit property by them did not arise as the title of the property belonged to them and that the case of the plaintiff for injunction was based on f