The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a High Court cannot invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to reject a plaint, reaffirming that such action falls within the original jurisdiction of trial courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment came in the case of K. Valarmathi & Ors. vs. Kumaresan, where the High Court had dismissed a civil suit citing the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the purchase of agricultural land (nanja land) by one Kathiresan in the name of his nephew Kumaresan, the respondent, purportedly on astrological advice. Kathiresan remained in possession of the land during his lifetime, and after his demise, his wife and daughters—the appellants—claimed continued possession.
Following disputes between the appellants and other family members, particularly the sisters of Kathiresan, the respondent initiated efforts to sell the land. This prompted the appellants to file O.S. No. 1087 of 2018 seeking a declaration of title and an injunction against the respondent. A related suit, O.S. No. 201 of 2018, concerned other properties.
The respondent filed two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, seeking rejection of the plaints in both suits.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The High Court, while hearing CRP (MD) 210 of 2019 in O.S. No. 1087 of 2018, held that the suit was barred by law under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and consequently rejected the plaint. However, it declined to reject the plaint in the other suit (CRP (MD) 125 of 2019 in O.S. No. 201 of 2018).
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The judgment was delivered by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The Court clarified that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and “cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise.” The power must be used sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors, and not to bypass statutory remedies under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Referring to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court noted:
“Order VII Rule 11 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.”
The bench further criticised the High Court for having “supervened the provisions of the Code” and thereby rendered nugatory the appellants’ right to appeal. The judgment added:
“Short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such impulses rendering procedural safeguards and substantive rights otiose, subvert certainty and consistency in law and need to be discouraged.”
The Court distinguished the case from its earlier ruling in Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers, (2022) 8 SCC 633, stating that in the current case, the High Court had directly usurped original jurisdiction, not merely corrected an error of a lower court.
The Court also cited Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 508, stating:
“In no case power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to question a plaint.”
Decision
Setting aside the impugned judgment dated 11 July 2024 of the High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respondent’s plea for rejection of the plaint, and granted liberty to pursue appropriate relief before the trial court.
Citation: K. Valarmathi & Ors. vs. Kumaresan, Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21466 of 2024)
