Plaint cannot be struck off under Article 227 if factual disputes require adjudication via Trial Court procedures.

The petitioners (Defendants 1-7) sought to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 394 of 2022 pending before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

Previously, the 7th respondent trust (Defendant 8) had filed O.S. No. 1380 of 2014 for declaration and injunction regarding the management of Sree Shirdi Saibaba Temple, which was eventually dismissed via Second Appeal (S.A. No. 559 of 2022).

Subsequently, respondents 1-6 (Plaintiffs) filed O.S. No. 394 of 2022 in a representative capacity as worshippers, seeking a permanent injunction and alleging the temple sits on government poromboke land.

The petitioners argue this new suit is a collusive abuse of process filed to harass them after the trust lost its legal battle.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off a plaint on the grounds of being vexatious or an abuse of process before the trial has commenced.

2. Whether the dispute involving the status of the land (poromboke vs. patta) and the rights of worshippers can be summarily decided without trial or examination of documents.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court’s power of superintendence over subordinate courts.

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467, which mandates that Trial Courts must "nip in the bud" vexatious suits that create an "illusion of a cause of action" through clever pleading using Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and examination of parties under Order X of the CPC.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners approached the High Court prematurely.

The Civil Revision Petition was filed only ten days after the suit was instituted and before the first hearing date.

The Court observed that while the previous trust litigation was dismissed, the current suit involves different claims—specifically, that the plaintiffs are worshippers and the land is poromboke.

The Court found that determining whether the suit is truly vexatious requires a factual inquiry into the nature of the land and the status of the worshippers, which cannot be conducted under Article 227 without the trial court first examining the plaint, documents, and parties under Order X of the CPC.

The Court emphasized that the petitioners have adequate alternative remedies, such as filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint at the trial level.

The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, directing that the petitioners should instead raise their grievances before the Trial Court through available procedural mechanisms under the CPC.

No costs were awarded.