Article 227 permits striking off plaints for abuse of process beyond Order VII Rule 11 grounds.

The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 139 of 2025 seeking a permanent injunction against eviction except by due process of law.

He claimed to be a caretaker in possession of the property and alleged that the petitioners, his sons, were attempting to evict him

The petitioners sought to strike off the plaint under Article 227, contending that the suit was an abuse of process following the rejection of an earlier partition suit, O.S. No. 184 of 2022, and that the suit property was vacant land

They also argued that the respondent lived elsewhere and received maintenance from them

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off the plaint where the suit is alleged to be a relitigation and an abuse of process

2. Whether the respondent’s suit for an injunction against eviction could be treated as an abuse of process in light of the earlier proceedings and the Court’s finding that the property was vacant land

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to intervene in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process.

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

It held that the present allegation of relitigation and abuse of process was not a ground available under Order VII Rule 11, and referred to K. Suganthy v. R. Chandrasekaran and Others, 2025 4 MLJ 520, and A.K. Hafasha and Others v. Anees Banu and Others, 2025 5 MLJ 499

The Court also relied on T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467, for the principle that plainly vexatious litigation may be terminated at the outset to prevent harassment and waste of judicial time

The Court considered the earlier proceedings, in which the plaint in O.S. No. 184 of 2022 had been rejected after the Court held that the claim concerning the testator’s ‘B’ Schedule property was unsustainable

It viewed the present suit as an attempt by those who had lost that litigation to use the respondent to pursue their ends

The Court further reasoned that the property was vacant land and, on that basis, rejected the respondent’s claim to be in physical possession as a caretaker and found the plea against eviction to be specious

Although the Court recognised that the stated grounds were not available under Order VII Rule 11, it concluded that the circumstances justified intervention under Article 227 to prevent abuse of process

The civil revision petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed