Revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to bypass an effective statutory appellate remedy, as it is a supervisory power intended only to keep courts within jurisdictional bounds, not to correct errors or serve as an appeal in disguise.

ORDER

The challenge in the civil revision petition is against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2024 in C.O.S.No.125 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Commercial Court, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Registry, having raised a doubt on the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition, the same is posted before this Court for deciding the maintainability.

3.The primary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit ought not to have been entertained as a commercial dispute, since the subject matter pertains to a loan secured as a mortgage, which, according to the petitioner, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2[1][c][i] of the Commercial Courts Act. It is further contended that the suit was projected as a commercial suit by suppressing the material facts and by fraudulently instituting a simple mortgage suit as a commercial dispute, thereby exposing the petitioner to the rigours and stringent provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.

4.This Court is unable to countenance the said submission in the present revisional jurisdiction. Whether the dispute answered the description of the ''commercial dispute''? Whether the suit is properly instituted before the Commercial Court? and whether there was suppression or fraud in invoking the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act?, are all matters touching upon the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Such grounds are grounds of challenge to the decree itself and cannot be a matter for revision by this Court. When a statute provides a specific appellate remedy against the judgment and decree, the aggrieved party is bound to work out his remedy only in the manner provided by law. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for an appeal against the judgment and decree and therefore, in the view of this Court, the petitioner cannot circumvent the statutory remedy of appeal and invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

5.It is trite that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution cannot be converted into appellate jurisdiction so as to re-examine the correctness of the facts or law, particularly, when an effective statutory appeal is available.

6.Worthy reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State [NCT of Delhi] Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in 2003 [6] SCC 641. The Apex Court, explained the powers available to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and held that they were not meant for and not to be exercised just for the purpose of correcting the errors. The Apex Court also held that ''it is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of jurisdiction and not to correct mere errors''. Further, while the statute provides for effective remedy, it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution since the power under the said provision was not meant to circumvent the statutory law. It is also settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be exercised as that of an appeal in disguise.

7.The said principle of law was reiterated in the judgment in K.Valarmathi Vs. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 INSC 606. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, while reiterating the above principles held as follows: ''the essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code.''

8.The judgment and decree of the Trial Court discloses that when the same