The Supreme Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 can’t be invoked to entertain a prayer for rejection of the plaint.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellants challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court in rejecting the plaint in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and Order VII Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code. This statutory scheme cannot be upended by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint.”

Advocate M Gireesh Kumar represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate R. Baskaran represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellants are the legal heirs, i.e. wife and daughters of one Kathiresan (since deceased). Kathiresan purchased the Nanja suit land from his funds in the name of the respondent, i.e. his nephew, on astrological advice. After the death of Kathiresan, disputes broke out between the appellants on one hand and the sisters of Kathiresan on the other, in respect of ownership of the suit land and other businesses. The respondent, who is the son of one of the sisters of late Kathiresan, initiated negotiations for the sale of the suit land.

This prompted the appellants to file a suit seeking a declaration regarding title and consequential injunction against the respondent from encumbering the suit land. The Respondent took out petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, praying for the rejection of the plaint in both the suits. The High Court by the impugned order rejected the plaint in the present suit, holding the suit is barred by law i.e. Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The Appellant approached the Apex Court challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to reject the plaint in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure that courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of the record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner.

The Bench observed, “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, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.”

It was further explained that the Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and Order VII Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code. This statutory scheme cannot be upended by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of the plaint.

Reference was made to the judgment in Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors. (2014) wherein it has been held that if a suit is not maintainable, it was well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in appropriate proceedings, but in no case, power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint.

Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: K. Valarmathi & Ors. V. Kumaresan (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 606)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate M. Gireesh Kumar, AOR Ankur S. Kulkarni, Advocates A S Naushad, Puspita Basak, Tarun

Respondent: Senior Advocate R. Baskaran, AOR Aswathi M.K., Advocates Arivazhagan.ac, S. Raju, V.C.Venkatachalam

Click here to read/download Judgment






Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Joymalya Bagchi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.