Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction not invocable to strike plaint when trial court remedies and arbitration procedure under S.8 available.

Order

Challenging the very filing of the suit in OS No. 367 of 2026 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, the 1st defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition contending that the suit is not maintainable. According to the revision petitioner, in view of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), particularly the arbitration clause, the plaintiff ought not to have approached the Civil Court and the suit itself is liable to be struck off.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the plaintiff, by suppressing material facts and contractual obligations, obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A. No. 2 of 2026 in the said suit. It is further contended that the trial Court granted the injunction without assigning proper reasons.

3. Placing reliance on Clause 23 (Arbitration) of the MOU, it is submitted that any dispute between the parties ought to be resolved only through arbitration, and therefore, the institution of the suit amounts to an abuse of process of law. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to strike off the plaint by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present revision petition. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 to strike off the plaint, especially when an effective remedy is available before the trial Court. It is further contended that the contractual relationship between the parties is still subsisting and has not been terminated.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff further submitted that the revision petitioner violated the terms of the MOU by proceeding with the 49th South India Rally, scheduled on 17.04.2026, without affording a fair opportunity and despite issuance of show cause notice. In such circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to approach the trial Court seeking interim injunction, which was granted upon consideration of prima facie materials. It is also contended that the revision petitioner, after obtaining interim stay from this Court, proceeded to conduct the rally and derived benefit therefrom. Therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Suresh Vs. D.Kalaivani & Ors reported in 2026 Supreme(SC)13, wherein it has been held that when an effective alternative remedy is available, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 is not warranted. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“5.1.1. The reserve of exceptional poser of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for granting of relief in individual cases but should be directed for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice. It is emphasized that though the power under Article 227 may be unfettered, its exercise is subject to high decree of judicial discipline. The Court observed in Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to halt and the foundation of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court’

... ...

6.2.3. As far as the ground of correction of valuation for supplying of the stamp paper is concerned, the proviso mentions that time m