Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory remedy of rejecting a plaint.

The Respondents (Plaintiffs) filed a suit (O.S. No. 35 of 2022) seeking a permanent injunction and a declaration that a Cancellation Deed dated October 04, 2017, is null and void.

The Plaintiffs alleged they purchased the property via a Sale Deed in 2008 but were forced by the Petitioner (Defendant) to execute the Cancellation Deed under police influence.

The Defendant claimed the property was allotted to him in a 1995 family partition and sought to strike off the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing the suit lacked a cause of action and was an abuse of process.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off a plaint when a statutory remedy for rejection of the plaint exists under the CPC.

2. Whether the plaint in O.S. No. 35 of 2022 discloses a prima facie cause of action requiring a trial.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, noting it must be used sparingly to prevent grave injustice rather than to supplant statutory remedies.

It relied on *T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal* [(1977) 4 SCC 467], which empowers Trial Courts to nip vexatious suits at the bud under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Furthermore, it followed *K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan* [2025 SCC Online SC 985], which clarifies that the High Court cannot circumvent the statutory scheme of Order VII Rule 11 CPC by invoking Article 227 to reject a plaint.

The Court observed that the Plaintiffs’ pleadings regarding the forcible execution of the Cancellation Deed and their alleged possession of the property provided a prima facie cause of action.

The Court reasoned that the veracity of these claims cannot be determined under Article 227 in the absence of evidence or plaint documents.

It held that if the suit were truly vexatious, the Petitioner’s proper remedy was to approach the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or request the court to examine the parties under Order X CPC.

The High Court emphasized that supervisory jurisdiction should not be used to usurp the original jurisdiction of the Trial Court or to bypass the appellate remedies available against a deemed decree.

The Court ruled that Article 227 is not a fit vehicle to strike off the plaint in this instance as the Petitioner failed to utilize the specific statutory provisions available under the CPC.

No costs were ordered.