High Court Cannot Reject A Plaint While Exercising Article 227 Power : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot reject a plaint in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition challenging the Madras High Court's decision to reject a plaint as barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court said that since the power under Article 227 is supervisory, it cannot be used by the High Court to usurp the functions of the Trial Court.

The judgment authored by Justice Bagchi stated :

"Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner.

Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908."

The Court stated that the Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and Order VII Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in which the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable before the High Court under Section 96 of the Code.

"This statutory scheme cannot be upended by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain a prayer for rejection of plaint," the Court stated.

In the present case, the High Court not only substituted itself as the court of first instance but also rendered nugatory a valuable right to appeal available to the appellant had the issue been adjudicated by the trial court in the first place.

Short-circuiting of procedure cannot be allowed

The Supreme Court further stated :

"Procedural law provides the necessary legal infrastructure on which edifice of rule of law is built. Short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such impulses rendering procedural safeguards and substantive rights otiose, subvert certainty and consistency in law and need to be discouraged."

Reference was also made to the 2014 decision in Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors which held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The judgment also distinguished the 2022 precedent Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers as there, the High Court rejected the plaint while exercising revisional power over the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint.

Appearances: Advocate  M. Gireesh Kumar for the appellant; Senior Advocate R. Baskaran for the respondent; Senior Advocate Mr. V. Prabhakar asssisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. 

Case : K. Valarmathi vs Kumaresan

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 515

Click here to read the judgment