High Court Cannot Use Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Order VII Rule 11 Remedy Exists, Supreme Court Directs

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal by P. Suresh challenging the Madras High Court's decision to allow a civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution and to strike off the plaint in Original Suit No. 93 of 2020. The question before the Court was whether a High Court could entertain and exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off a plaint where a specific statutory remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was available.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that the Madras High Court committed a manifest error in exercising Article 227 in place of the statutory remedy, set aside the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2025 and restored the suit to the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram. The Court reiterated that Article 227 was an extraordinary supervisory power to be exercised sparingly and not "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As stated above, embargo in this regard would have to be construed as near total when provision is available in CPC. It is held, therefore, that once the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint. For such relief, the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, will have to be resorted to, on the grounds mentioned in the said provision." The Court directed that the parties appear before the trial court on 16.02.2026 and granted liberty to the defendants to file an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, to be considered strictly in accordance with law; there would be no costs.

Background

The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction claiming exclusive possession of lands described in Patta No. 320, asserting title through a registered sale deed dated 20.10.1975 by which Sambandam Chettiar allegedly sold the land to the plaintiff's mother, Meena, who died intestate in 1985. The plaintiff claimed mutation in his favour (Patta No. 11941) and alleged that defendants trespassed and threatened encroachment when he sought to erect a fence.

The defendants denied the sale transaction, contended that the certified copy of the sale deed was fabricated and pertained to a third party, and asserted their own title based on earlier transactions and continuous possession. They urged that the suit was fraudulent and sought relief by way of civil revision under Article 227, urging the High Court to strike off the plaint relying also on Order VI Rule 16 CPC.

The Madras High Court found the sale deed to be forged, recorded that the plaint had earlier been dismissed for default and that the plaintiff had not acted for about a year, and concluded that the suit was false; it therefore allowed the revision petition and struck off the plaint. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed settled precedents including Shalini Shyam Shetty, Navjot Sandhu, Virudhunagar and Radhey Shyam, emphasised that Article 227 must not be deployed to supplant the statutory remedies provided in the CPC, and noted that Order VI Rule 16 related to striking out parts of pleadings and could not be stretched to justify striking off an entire plaint in place of Order VII Rule 11. The Court concluded that where an alternative efficacious civil remedy existed under the CPC, the High Court should ordinarily refuse to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction except in exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the High Court's order of 03.06.2025 was set aside, the suit was restored, interlocutory applications were disposed of, and the defendants were given liberty to seek rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 before the trial court.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20423 of 2025) Case Title: P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abdulla Naseeh (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Prabhakar, Sr. Advocate; Mr. S. Rajappa (Advocate on Record)