P. Suresh Vs D. Kalaivani & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Article 227 Cannot Be Used to Strike Off Plaint When CPC Remedy Exists — SC Restores Suit
The Supreme Court of India has emphatically held that High Courts cannot invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off or reject a plaint when a specific statutory remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available, particularly Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
In the present case, the Madras High Court, exercising powers u/Art.227, had struck off the plaint in a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the suit was allegedly based on forged documents and fraud, even though the defendants had an efficacious remedy of seeking rejection of plaint u/O VII R 11 CPC.
The Supreme Court held that Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and cannot be used “as a cloak of appeal” or to supplant statutory remedies provided under the CPC. It reiterated that where proceedings are governed by the CPC and remedies such as appeal, revision, or rejection of plaint are available, the availability of such remedy operates as a near-total bar on invocation of Article 227.
The Court further clarified that Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits striking out parts of pleadings that are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, but cannot be stretched to justify striking down the entire plaint, which is exclusively governed by Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Issues relating to fraud, title, or disputed facts necessarily require trial and evidence, and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in supervisory jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the suit to the trial court, and granted liberty to the defendants to file an application u/O VII R 11 CPC, to be decided strictly in accordance with law
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
