Alternative remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC bars supervisory jurisdiction to strike off plaint.

The Respondent (developer) filed a suit (O.S.No.105 of 2024) for permanent injunction to restrain the Petitioner (Owners Association) from obstructing usage of common passages and car parks

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the plaint, arguing the suit was a "camouflage" to circumvent a prior order by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) dated 21.12.2022, which directed compliance with approved car parking plans

The Petitioner further alleged the suit was barred by Section 79 of the RERA Act and principles of res judicata due to previous writ proceedings regarding clubhouse construction

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off a plaint when alternative remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are available

2. Whether disputed questions of fact regarding compliance with approved plans and res judicata can be decided in a revision petition without evidence

The Court applied the principle that the availability of an alternative remedy poses a "near total bar" on exercising supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, as established in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society

It further relied on P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani (2026 INSC 121), which held that High Courts must desist from striking off plaints when specific provisions like Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC exist for rejection of a plaint

The court also noted that Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 bars civil court jurisdiction over matters determined by the Authority, but such a bar must be tested via the Trial Court

The Court reasoned that the Respondent's assertion of compliance with the approved plan versus the Petitioner's claim of violation constitutes a "disputed question of fact" requiring evidence, making it unsuitable for summary dismissal in revision

Regarding the legal bars (Section 79 RERA and res judicata), the Court observed that the Petitioner has an "effective remedy" by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC before the Trial Court

The Court emphasized that rushing to the High Court under Article 227 is improper when the CPC provides a specific statutory mechanism to challenge the maintainability of a suit

The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass the Trial Court's power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC

Liberty was granted to the Petitioner to approach the Trial Court with an application for rejection of the plaint or to argue res judicata based on evidence