Holding

The High Court cannot use its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to reject a plaint; such rejection must follow the statutory provisions of the CPC.

Summary

The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased Kathiresan, filed suits seeking declaration of title and injunction over a suit land purchased by Kathiresan. The respondent, a relative, invoked Article 227 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court, seeking rejection of the plaints on the ground that they were barred by the Benami Act. The High Court rejected one plaint, effectively substituting itself for the trial court and bypassing the procedural mechanism under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Supreme Court held that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to usurp the original jurisdiction of the trial court or to override the statutory scheme for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 96 of the CPC. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, permitting the parties to pursue relief before the trial court in accordance with law.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, reject a plaint filed in a civil suit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 11, s. Section 96
Constitution of India
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 reject a plaint. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint by the High Court 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 – Civil Procedure Code is a

Subjects

Article 227Supervisory jurisdictionRejection of plaintUsurping the original jurisdiction of courtStatutory SchemeProcedural lawShort-circuiting of procedure

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2461 : 2025 INSC 606

K. Valarmathi & Ors.
v.
Kumaresan
(Civil Appeal No. 5677 of 2025)
29 April 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 reject a plaint.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint by the
High Court u/Art.227 of the Constitution – Correctness:
Held: 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 –
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 u/s.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 – In the instant case, High
Court has supervened the provisions of the Code when it rejected
the plaint on the ground it was barred by law – In doing so, 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 – 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 – Thus, the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 9-11, 14, 16]

* Author
2462 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Law Cited
Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors. [2014] 5 SCR 85 : (2014) 6 SCC
508 – relied on.
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin
Educational Society [2019] 13 SCR 634 : (2019) 9 SCC 538; Frost
(International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers [2022] 14 SCR 1100 :
(2022) 8 SCC 633 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Prohibition
of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

List of Keywords
Article 227; Supervisory jurisdiction; Rejection of plaint; Usurping
the original jurisdiction of court; Statutory Scheme; Procedural law;
Short-circuiting of procedure.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5677
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRPMD No. 210 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
M Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, A S Naushad, Ms. Puspita
Basak, Tarun.
Advs. for the Respondent:
R. Baskaran, Sr. Adv., S.Raju, Arivazhagan Ac, V.C. Venkatachalam,
Ms. Aswathi M.K.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave granted.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2463

K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan

2. Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 reject a plaint?
3. Short factual compass giving rise to the issue is as follows:
Appellants are the legal heirs i.e. wife and daughters of one Kathiresan
(since deceased). Kathiresan purchased the nanja suit land from
his own funds in the name of the respondent i.e. his nephew. He
had done so on astrological advice. During his lifetime, Kathiresan
was in possession of the suit land and thereafter appellants claim
to be in possession of the said land. After the death of Kathiresan,
disputes broke out between the appellants on one hand and sisters
of Kathiresan on the other, in respect of ownership of the suit land
and other businesses. The respondent, who is the son of one of the
sisters of late Kathiresan, initiated negotiations for sale of the suit
land. This prompted the appellants to file O.S. No. 1087 of 20181
seeking a declaration regarding title and consequential injunction
against the respondent from encumbering the suit land. Other lands
purchased by Kathiresan from his own funds in the name/joint name
with other family members, were the subject matter of another O.S.
No. 201 of 20182 instituted by the appellants.
4. Respondent took out petitions3 under Article 227 of the Constitution
before the High Court praying for rejection of plaint in both the suits.
5. High Court by the impugned order, inter alia, rejected the plaint in
the present suit, holding the suit is barred by law i.e. Prohibition of
Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.4 With regard to the other
suit the High Court was of the view the suit was not barred under
the Benami Act and declined the relief.
6. Appellants have challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to reject
the plaint in exercise of its supervisory powers under Article 227 of
the Constitution.
7. Heard Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant
and Mr. R. Baskaran, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel also assisted the Court

1 Hereinafter, ‘the present suit’.
2 Hereinafter, ‘the other suit’.
3 CRP (MD) 125 of 2019 in O.S. No. 201 of 2018 and CRP (MD) 210 of 2019 in O.S. No. 1087 of 2018.
4 In short, Benami Act.
2464 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Prabhakar contends the High Court erred
in law invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution to reject the plaint.
8. 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.
9. 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, 1908.5 For example,
existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code
operates as a near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227.6
10. 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.
11. In the present case, High Court has supervened the provisions of
the Code when it rejected the plaint on the ground it was barred
by law. In doing so, 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.
12. We are conscious appellate remedy against rejection of plaint is not
available if the High Court had in its revisional jurisdiction reversed

5 In short, ‘the Code’
6 Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC
538
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2465

K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan

the order of trial court and rejected the plaint. In Frost (International)
Ltd. v. Milan Developers,7 this Court observed as follows:-
“31. No doubt rejection of a plaint is a decree within the
meaning of Section 2(2)CPC and an appeal lies from every
decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction
to the court authorised to hear appeals from a decision
of such court. However, it must be borne in mind that
when a Revisional Court rejects a plaint, in substance, an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 is being allowed.
Under such circumstances, the remedy by way of a writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could be
availed and Respondent 1/the plaintiff has resorted to
the said remedy in the instant case; although if the plaint
had been rejected by the trial court i.e. court of original
jurisdiction, it would have resulted in a right of appeal
under Section 96 CPC.”
13. These observations in Frost (supra) are not relevant for the matter
in issue as the High Court in the present case had not exercised its
supervisory power to correct a jurisdictional error of the trial court
but usurped its original jurisdiction to reject the plaint.
14. 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.
15. Similar issue fell for decision in Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors.8 when
a tenant (non-party to the suit) prayed for rejection of an alleged
collusive suit between the legal heirs of his erstwhile landlord and
the new purchaser under Article 226/227. Deprecating invocation
of constitutional powers in a landlord-tenant dispute, the Court
observed: -
“15. …If a suit is not maintainable it was well within
the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same

7 [2022] 14 SCR 1100 : (2022) 8 SCC 633.
8 [2014] 5 SCR 85 : (2014) 6 SCC 508
2466 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in appropriate proceedings but in no case power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be
exercised to question a plaint.”
16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned
judgment dated 11.07.2024 passed by the High Court and allow the
appeal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion
regarding merits of the plea of the respondent for rejection of plaint
and give liberty to seek necessary relief before the trial court in
accordance with law, if so advised.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan