Article 227 permits striking a plaint for re-litigation and abuse of process.

The petitioner, who had obtained a decree for specific performance against Mani in O.S. No. 5 of 2010, challenged a later suit brought by Mani’s children.

They sought partition and allotment of a 2/3 share in the property, and a declaration that the specific-performance decree was not binding on their alleged share.

In the earlier specific-performance suit, Mani had pleaded that the property was ancestral and that he could not contract to sell the whole property; the decree in favour of the petitioner was upheld on appeal.

Mani’s mother had also brought O.S. No. 445 of 2012 challenging related transactions; that suit was dismissed.

The petitioner sought to strike off the children’s plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution, alleging re-litigation and abuse of process.

Whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off the plaint as an abuse of process, notwithstanding the availability of remedies under the CPC.

Whether the children’s partition suit and challenge to the earlier specific-performance decree amounted to re-litigation.

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and ensure that civil litigation is not used to harass another party.

The Court referred to P. Suresh v. D. Kalivani, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 143, for the principle that where a remedy is available under Order VII Rule 11 or Order VI Rule 16 CPC, a party should ordinarily pursue that remedy before the trial court rather than invoke Article 227.

It distinguished the present case on the basis that re-litigation and abuse of process were not grounds available under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and referred to K. Suganthy v. R. Chandrasekaran and A.K. Hafasha v. Anees Banu in support of its approach.

The Court found that Mani had already raised the ancestral-property contention in the specific-performance proceedings, which resulted in a decree upheld on appeal; it treated that decree as having been made after consideration of the parties’ pleadings and evidence.

It also noted the dismissal of Mani’s mother’s earlier suit and considered the children’s later claim—seeking to limit the effect of the decree on the basis of the same property being ancestral—to be a further attempt, orchestrated by Mani, to resist the decree through successive litigation.

Because the asserted ground was re-litigation and abuse of process, which the Court considered unavailable under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it held that the petitioner could seek relief under Article 227.

It concluded that intervention was necessary to prevent continued abuse of the judicial process.

It allowed the Civil Revision Petition and struck off the plaint pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Villupuram; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.