High Court cannot reject Plaint under Article 227: Madras HC refuses Intervention

The Madras High Court has reinforced that High Court cannot reject plaint under Article 227 to bypass procedural remedies available under the civil code, especially when factual disputes regarding possession and cause of action require a full-fledged trial. In a significant procedural clarification, the Court ruled that the existence of an alternate remedy for the rejection of a plaint serves as a primary bar against the summary striking off of pleadings under constitutional powers.

In a matter heard by Justice R. Sakthivel, the Bench examined a revision petition seeking to strike off a suit filed by subsequent purchasers of property. The petitioner contended that the suit was an abuse of process and a violation of existing interim orders passed during the pendency of related second appeals.

Key Takeaways

Primacy of Trial in Factual Disputes

Issues concerning the truth of a cause of action or the actual status of possession are questions of fact that necessitate a trial rather than summary dismissal under revisionary powers.

Alternate Remedy as a Bar

The availability of a specific remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 precludes the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off a plaint.

Conduct of Parties and Suit Status

The Court will take judicial notice of the current status of the underlying suit; a suit already dismissed for default leaves little room for the High Court to exercise discretionary striking-off powers.

Court Rationale on Factual Disputes and Alternate Remedies

The Madras High Court observed that the respondents, acting as plaintiffs in the original suit, had pleaded a specific cause of action and supported their claims with revenue records to assert possession. It held that determining the veracity of these claims is strictly within the province of the trial court. The Bench observed that "Whether their cause of action that the revision petitioner attempted to interfere with their possession of the suit properties is true or not, is a question of fact which requires trial. Further, the revision petitioner has an alternate remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well. When so, this is not a fit case to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint, in the considered opinion of this Court."

Furthermore, the Bench noted that the records indicated the suit in question (renumbered as O.S. No.750 of 2012) had already been dismissed for default in 2018 and no restoration application had been filed as of March 2020. Consequently, the Madras High Court found no merit in the revision petition.

Ratio

The High Court cannot exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off a plaint when the dispute involves triable questions of fact and where the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy for rejection of the plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Background

The revision petitioner had previously filed two suits (O.S. No.207 of 1997 and O.S. No. 347 of 1997) which reached the stage of Second Appeals. During these proceedings, an interim injunction was granted in favor of the petitioner. However, the respondents purchased the suit properties in 2008 and subsequently filed a new suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner, alleging interference with their possession.

The petitioner moved the High Court to strike off this new suit, arguing it was a fraudulent attempt to defeat his rights and constituted a contempt of the High Court's earlier injunction orders. The respondents countered that they were bona-fide purchasers for value who were in actual possession, thus justifying their separate legal action. The Madras High Court ultimately refused to intervene, citing the necessity of trial and the existence of alternative procedural remedies.

Case Details:
Case No.: C.R.P. No.3439 of 2011
Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3805
Case Title: Nataraj Vs N.Parameshwaran and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.M.Guruprasad
For the Respondent(s): Mr.J.Arul

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 22541