The High Court should refrain from exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 when an adequate alternative remedy exists.

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint filed by the 1^st respondent in O.S.No.197 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry.

2. The 1^st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.197 of 2022 seeking declaration of her title over the suit properties. She also sought for a declaration that various documents executed by persons mentioned in the prayer from the year 1976 to 2004 were null and void. She also prayed for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction in the suit properties and from creating any encumbrance over the suit properties. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff claimed title over the suit properties under two registered Sale Deeds dated 22.02.2001 executed by one Selva Jaya's Principal, Ramani Boopathy in favour of the plaintiff.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Annamalai Gounder, who had 6 sons and 2 daughters. One of his sons-Selva Ramalingam represented by his wife-Selva Jaya filed a civil suit in O.S.No.44 of 1973 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Pondicherry seeking declaration that Sale Deed dated 03.10.1946 in favour of Amurthammal, wife of P.Annamalai Gounder was a Binami and the suit property was 'communite legal' and for partition of suit properties claiming 1/9^th share. In the said suit, preliminary decree for partition was passed in favour of Selva Ramalingam. Thereafter, final decree proceedings were initiated. The final decree was passed on 08.09.1978 in I.A.No.1462 of 1974 allotting 1/9^th share. The said Selva Ramalingam filed E.P.No.43 of 1985 and got delivery of the suit property through Court. Subsequently, the wife of the said Selva Ramalingam namely Selva Jaya executed 2 Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiff, thus, the plaintiff claims title over the suit properties.

4. The petitioners, who were arrayed as defendants 4, 5 and 17 in the suit filed instant civil revision petition seeking to strike off the plaint filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff.

5. Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly raised two points. Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prayers 2 to 14 in the plaint are relating to the invalidity of the registered documents that came into existence from the year 1976 to 2004 and the present suit had been instituted in the year 2022 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. According to him, even if the point of limitation is not set up as a defence by the defendants, by virtue of Section 3 of Limitation Act , 1963, the Trial Court is bound to consider whether the suit prayer is within limitation. He also submitted that the Trial Court ought to have invoked power available under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the plaint.

6. Secondly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 1^st respondent/plaintiff failed to refer to the earlier suit for bare injunction filed by her in O.S.No.849 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry as against the petitioners and also the suits instituted by the petitioners 1 and 3 in O.S.Nos.832 and 841 of 2009 and the appeals in A.S.Nos.11 and 12 of 2020 and A.S.No.6 of 2021. It is also stated that as against the common judgment passed in the appeals, second appeals have been filed before this Court in S.A.Nos.715 and 716 of 2024 and S.A.No.305 of 2025 and the said second appeals are pending. Therefore, according to him, there is a suppression of fact regarding the earlier proceedings by the 1^st respondent and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Couns