A plaint cannot be struck off under Article 227; rejection must be sought under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The defendant in O.S. No. 279 of 2022, pending before the Subordinate Court, Mettur Dam, filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 seeking to strike off the plaint. He alleged that the plaintiff ran an unregistered company and that the suit concerned a chit transaction in which a promissory note had been misused.

The High Court heard the petitioner’s counsel and considered whether the plaint could be struck off in this proceeding.

Whether the High Court could strike off the plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner should instead seek rejection of the plaint before the trial court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their jurisdiction; it cannot ordinarily be used to assume the trial court’s original jurisdiction or supplant a remedy provided by the CPC.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC specifies the grounds on which a trial court may reject a plaint; rejection is a deemed decree appealable under Section 96 CPC.

The Court also relied on P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani, reported in 2026 (7) SCC 644, for the proposition that a party seeking rejection of a plaint must pursue Order VII Rule 11 CPC rather than seek that relief under Article 227.

The petitioner sought the substantive relief of striking off the plaint on grounds concerning the plaintiff’s alleged unregistered status and the nature and alleged misuse of the promissory note.

The Court held that Article 227 was not the proper route to obtain that relief: the CPC provides a specific procedure under Order VII Rule 11, and the trial court must consider any such application in the first instance.

It therefore left the petitioner’s substantive grounds undecided and directed that they could be raised before the trial court in accordance with law.

The petitioner was granted liberty to apply to the trial court for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; the trial court was directed to consider that application independently. No order as to costs was made.