An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is appealable under Section 96 CPC.

The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 10 July 2025 passed in I.A. No. 7 of 2025 in O.S. No. 305 of 2023 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.

The Trial Court had rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that the suit was barred by limitation.

During the hearing, it was brought to the Court’s notice that the second respondent, who was the second defendant in the suit, had died; her legal representatives were already parties to the revision petition.

The petitioner relied on M/s. Sri MVR Logistics Private Limited v. A. Kanagarajan, CRP No. 5201 of 2024, decided on 26 March 2026, to contend that the revision under Article 227 was maintainable.

The respondents argued that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 constituted a decree and was appealable under Section 96 CPC.

Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC is available?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appeal without being prejudiced by limitation on account of the pendency of the revision petition?

Whether the petitioner may implead the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant in the proposed appeal without filing a separate application for acceptance of the amended cause title?

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC, under which a plaint may be rejected, inter alia, where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law, including limitation.

Under Section 2(2) CPC, rejection of a plaint constitutes a decree, and such decree is appealable under Section 96 CPC.

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court, but that jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked where an effective statutory appellate remedy is available.

The Court distinguished M/s. Sri MVR Logistics Private Limited v. A. Kanagarajan, CRP No. 5201 of 2024, where the challenge concerned dismissal of an application for leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC and the suit had not culminated in an appealable decree in the same manner.

The Court held that the present case concerned rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation.

Since such rejection amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) CPC, the appropriate remedy was a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC, and not a revision under Article 227.

The Court found the decision in M/s. Sri MVR Logistics distinguishable because it involved a different procedural context concerning leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC.

Nevertheless, the Court declined to prejudice the petitioner merely because the revision had remained pending before the High Court from 27 January 2026.

It therefore granted liberty to file the statutory appeal and directed that limitation should not be set up against the petitioner in respect of the period covered by the revision proceedings.

Since the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant were already parties to the revision, the Court permitted their impleadment in the appeal without requiring a separate application for acceptance of the cause title.

The petitioner was granted four weeks from receipt of the order to file a regular appeal, which was to be entertained without limitation being raised against her and decided on merits after hearing the respondents.

She was permitted to implead the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant without a separate application concerning the cause title.

The Registry was directed to return the original order rejecting the plaint to facilitate filing of the appeal within two weeks.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.