Full Judgment Text
Reportable
2025 INSC 606
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21466 of 2024)
K. Valarmathi & Ors. …..Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Kumaresan …..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 reject a plaint?
3. Short factual compass giving rise to the issue is as follows:
Appellants are the legal heirs i.e. wife and daughters of one
Kathiresan (since deceased). Kathiresan purchased the nanja
suit land from his own funds in the name of the respondent i.e.
his nephew. He had done so on astrological advice. During his
lifetime, Kathiresan was in possession of the suit land and
thereafter appellants claim to be in possession of the said land.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.04.30
18:02:56 IST
Reason:
After the death of Kathiresan, disputes broke out between the
Page 1 of 6
appellants on one hand and 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 sale of the suit land. This
1
prompted the appellants to file O.S. No. 1087 of 2018 seeking
a declaration regarding title and consequential injunction
against the respondent from encumbering the suit land. Other
lands purchased by Kathiresan from his own funds in the
name/joint name with other family members, were the subject
2
matter of another O.S. No. 201 of 2018 instituted by the
appellants.
3
4. Respondent took out petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution before the High Court praying for rejection of plaint
in both the suits.
5. High Court by the impugned order, inter alia , rejected the plaint
in the present suit, holding the suit is barred by law i.e.
4
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 . With
regard to the other suit the High Court was of the view the suit
was not barred under the Benami Act and declined the relief.
1
Hereinafter, ‘the present suit’.
2
Hereinafter, ‘the other suit’.
3
CRP (MD) 125 of 2019 in O.S. No. 201 of 2018 and CRP (MD) 210 of 2019 in O.S. No.
1087 of 2018.
4
In short, Benami Act.
Page 2 of 6
6. Appellants have challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to
reject the plaint in exercise of its supervisory powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution.
7.
Heard Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant
and Mr. R. Baskaran, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent. Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel also
assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Prabhakar contends
the High Court erred in law invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution to reject the plaint.
8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is
exercised to ensure 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 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.
9. 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
Page 3 of 6
5
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
6
jurisdiction under Article 227 .
10. 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.
11. In the present case, High Court has supervened the provisions
of the Code when it rejected the plaint on the ground it was
barred by law. In doing so, the High Court not only substituted
itself as the court of first instance but also rendered nugatory a
valuable right to appeal available to the appellant had the issue
been adjudicated by the trial court in the first place.
12. We are conscious appellate remedy against rejection of plaint is
not available if the High Court had in its revisional jurisdiction
5
In short, ‘the Code’
6
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society,
(2019) 9 SCC 538
Page 4 of 6
reversed the order of trial court and rejected the plaint. In Frost
7
(International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers , this Court observed as
follows:-
“31. No doubt rejection of a plaint is a decree within the meaning of
Section 2(2)CPC and an appeal lies from every decree passed by any
court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear
appeals from a decision of such court. However, it must be borne in
mind that when a Revisional Court rejects a plaint, in substance,
an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 is being allowed. Under
such circumstances, the remedy by way of a writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution could be availed and Respondent
1/the plaintiff has resorted to the said remedy in the instant case;
although if the plaint had been rejected by the trial court i.e. court
of original jurisdiction, it would have resulted in a right of appeal
under Section 96 CPC.”
13. These observations in Frost (supra) are not relevant for the
matter in issue as the High Court in the present case had not
exercised its supervisory power to correct a jurisdictional error
of the trial court but usurped its original jurisdiction to reject
the plaint.
14. Procedural law provides the necessary legal infrastructure on
which edifice of rule of law is built. 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.
7
(2022) 8 SCC 633.
Page 5 of 6
8
15. Similar issue fell for decision in Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors.
when a tenant (non-party to the suit) prayed for rejection of an
alleged collusive suit between the legal heirs of his erstwhile
landlord and the new purchaser under Article 226/227.
Deprecating invocation of constitutional powers in a landlord-
tenant dispute, the Court observed: -
“ 15. …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.”
16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned
judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed by the High Court and allow
the appeal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion regarding merits of the plea of the respondent for
rejection of plaint and give liberty to seek necessary relief before
the trial court in accordance with law, if so advised.
….……..…..……...……………………….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
….……..…..……...……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
New Delhi,
April 29, 2025
8
(2014) 6 SCC 508
Page 6 of 6