B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.

The plaintiffs in the unnumbered suit OSSR. No. 6407 of 2015, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 27.08.2015 running in 13 pages rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (f) CPC on the grounds of no cause of action and no compliance with filing of process with plaint copies to the defendants, impugning the same maintained the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. This Court when came for admission raised objections on maintainability from the alternative remedy of appeal against the order of rejection available as statutory remedy. The learned counsel placed reliance on several expressions of which the expression of the Delhi High Court in Morgan Stanlay Mutual Fund v. Piyush Aggarwal, observed at Para 6 that the power of the superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India given to the High Court for the purpose of seeing justice is meted out fairly and properly and instead of exercising its power under Article 227 even it can direct the petitioner to move application against the ad interim exparte injunction, under Rule 4 of Order 39 or file appeal, from the date of commencement of pub