P. SURESHversusD.KALAIVANI & ORS

                 [2026] 2 S.C.R. 558 : 2026 INSC 121

                                 P. Suresh
                                     v.
                             D.Kalaivani & Ors.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026)
                               03 February 2026
               [Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising
       its powers of superintendence u/Art.227 of the Constitution, even
       where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil
       Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) relating to the subject matter – issue
       is the focal point arising to be addressed in the present appeal.

                                   Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure,
       1908 – Or.VII R.11, Or.VI R.16 – Supervisory jurisdiction of High
       Court – What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the
       appellant-original plaintiff, is the judgment and order passed
       by the High Court dated 03.06.2025 in CRP No.3197 of 2024
       and CMP No.17106 of 2024, which were the proceedings of the
       Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant u/Art.227 of the
       Constitution, whereby, the High Court allowed the Revision
       Petition and struck off the plaint in Original Suit No.93 of 2020
       before the Court of District Munsif – Correctness:
       Held: In the garb of exercising supervisory jurisdiction u/Art.227
       of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to engulf the
       specific statutory remedy or provision in law and, thus, become a
       supervisor over the court below or the tribunal, as the case may
       be – It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for the High
       Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline and
       to insist that the aggrieved party should take recourse to such
       alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law – Embargo
       in this regard would have to be construed as near total when
       provision is available in CPC – It is held, therefore, that once the
       specific provision u/Or.VII, R.11 of the CPC, is available, the High
       Court cannot exercise powers u/Art.227 to reject or strike off the


* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                              559

                      P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


     plaint – For such relief, the specific provision u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC,
     will have to be resorted to, on the grounds mentioned in the said
     provision – In adopting such approach, the High Court would be
     giving due regard to the legislative intent – When the legislature
     has enacted specific remedial provision to be taken recourse to
     by the person aggrieved to challenge the orders and decisions of
     the court to seek redress in law accordingly that remedy alone will
     have to be sought for – This court is of the view that High Court
     committed a manifest error in exercising its powers u/Art.227 of
     the Constitution to strike down the plaint – It ought to have asked
     the defendant to take recourse to, in accordance with law, when
     specific provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
     in the nature of Or.VII, R.11 – The impugned judgment and order
     of the High Court, therefore, is set aside – Consequently, the suit
     is restored to its original file. [Paras 7.3, 7.4, 8-11]
     Constitution of India – Art.227 – Superintendence over all
     courts – Explained:
     Held: Art.227 of the Constitution invests the power of superintendence
     over all courts by the High Court – Sub-Article (1) thereof provides
     that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts
     and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
     exercises jurisdiction – As per sub-Article (2), without prejudice to
     the generality of the provisions in sub-Article (1), the High Court
     may (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue
     general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
     proceedings of such courts and (c) prescribe forms in which the
     books and accounts etc. to be kept by the officers of courts – As
     per sub-Article (3), the High Court may also settle tables of fees –
     Sub-Article (4) provides that nothing in the Article shall deem to
     confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court
     or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
     Forces – The reserve of exceptional power of judicial intervention
     is not to be exercised just for granting of relief in individual cases
     but should be directed for the promotion of public confidence in
     the administration of justice – It is emphasized that though the
     power u/Art.227 may be unfettered, its exercise is subject to high
     degree of judicial discipline. [Paras 5, 5.1.1]
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VI, R.16 – Or.VII, R.11 –
     Discussed. [Paras 6.1-6.2.1]
560                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                                Case Law Cited
       State v. Navjot Sandhu [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 79 : (2003) 6 SCC
       641; K. Valarmathi and Ors. v. Kumaresan [2025] 4 SCR 2461 :
       2025 SCC OnLine SC 985; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma
       Paribalana Sabai and Others v. Tuticorin Educational Society and
       Others [2019] 13 SCR 634 : (2019) 9 SCC 538; Radhey Shyam v.
       Chhabi Nath [2015] 3 SCR 197 : (2015) 5 SCC 423 – relied on.
       Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [2010] 8 SCR 836 :
       (2010) 8 SCC 329; A. Venkateshubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan
       [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 303 : (2000) 7 SCC 695; Rajendra Diwan v.
       Pradeep Kumar Ranibala and Anr. [2019] 17 SCR 1089 : (2019)
       20 SCC 143; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [2003] Supp.
       2 SCR 290 : (2003) 6 SCC 675 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                               List of Keywords
       Article 227 of Constitution of India; Alternative remedy; Order VII,
       Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VI, Rule 16 of Code
       of Civil Procedure, 1908; Triable issues; Supervisory jurisdiction;
       Specific remedial provision; Extraordinary power; Statutory remedy;
       Discretion; Injunction; Rejection of plaint; Striking out pleadings;
       Manifest error; Court of appeal; Miscarriage of justice; Judicial
       intervention; Judicial discipline.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2025 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in CRP No. 3197 of 2024

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Abdulla Naseeh V.T., Ms. Abreeda Banu, Ms. Rachel Sara James.
       Adv. for the Respondent(s):
       V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv., S. Rajappa, Ms. Jyoti Parashar,
       R Gowrishankar, Ms. G Dhivyasri, Naanchil J Deekshith.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           561

                      P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     N.V. Anjaria, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising
     its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution,
     even where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil
     Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) relating to
     the subject matter – issue is the focal point arising to be addressed
     in the present appeal.
     2.1 What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant -
         original plaintiff, is the judgment and order passed by the High
         Court of Madras dated 03.06.2025 in CRP No. 3197 of 2024
         and CMP No. 17106 of 2024, which were the proceedings of
         the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant under Article
         227 of the Constitution, whereby, the High Court allowed the
         Revision Petition and struck off the plaint in Original Suit No.
         93 of 2020 before the Court of District Munsif, Tambaram.
3.   Outlining the facts would be relevant to notice the case pleaded in the
     plaint. The suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff before the District
     Munsif Court, Tambaram was for the relief of permanent injunction
     against the defendants and their agents from interfering with the
     possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. The
     suit property comprised of Survey No. 125/1A, Survey No. 125/1C,
     and Survey No. 230/1B, which was described in their specified
     boundaries of Patta No. 320.
     3.1 The case of the plaintiff was that the land originally belonged to
         one Sambandam Chettiar, who sold the same to the mother of
         the appellant named Meena under a registered sale deed dated
         20.10.1975, Document No. 3994 of 1975. The said Meena -
         wife of Paramasivam, was in exclusive possession of the suit
         property and she died intestate on 07.12.1985. It was further
         averred that the plaintiff as her sole legal heir inherited the
         property and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment
         of the same and further that the plaintiff got revenue records
         mutated in his favour in Patta No. 11941.
562                                                          [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            3.1.1 It was further averred in the plaint that the suit property,
                  an open land, was to be bound by the fence. It was
                  stated that at that time, defendant No. 2 trespassed and
                  prevented the plaintiff from erecting the fence. It was
                  averred that the defendants claimed to be the relatives
                  of Sambandam Chettiar. The plaintiff stated that since
                  the defendants threatened to encroach upon the suit
                  property, the cause of action arose for instituting the
                  Original Suit No. 93 of 2020.
       3.2 In the written statement filed by the defendants, the transaction
           of sale in favour of the plaintiff’s mother Meena was disputed
           by contending that the sale document was fabricated. It was
           sought to be contended that the certified copy of the sale deed
           filed along with the plaint used to be the property of another
           document and further that the sale deed was not signed by the
           said Sambandam Chettiar. It was the case of the defendants
           that the document did not pertain to the suit sale but it was a
           mortgage deed executed by a third party.
            3.2.1 It was then contended that the said Sambandam Chettiar
                  and his mother owned the suit property which they had
                  purchased in the years 1922 and 1928 under registered
                  sale deeds, and that agricultural operations were carried
                  out in the lands using the services of coolies. The
                  defendants contended that in the year 1940, when their
                  mother died, all the properties were inherited and that
                  they were in possession and enjoyment of the same.
                  It was stated that in the year 2020, the defendants
                  tendered kist for the land covered under Patta No. 320,
                  but the Village Administrative Officer refused to receive
                  the same, stating that the ownership of the land/Patta
                  had changed.
       3.3 By raising the above and other contentions, the defendants put
           forward their case inter alia that the question of trespassing
           into the suit property by them did not arise as the title of the
           property belonged to them and that the case of the plaintiff for
           injunction was based on fabricated documents and that the
           suit was fraudulent.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           563

                      P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


     3.4 In the Civil Revision Petition filed before the High Court under
         Article 227 of the Constitution by the defendants, it was
         contended that although the plaintiff was claiming exclusive
         title over the property, he did not seek the declaration of his
         title. The principles of exercising powers under Order VII Rule
         11, CPC and the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of CPC were
         pressed into service on behalf of the defendant-petitioners,
         praying before the High Court to strike off the plaint in exercise
         of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
     3.5 The High Court noted the case and averments, the defence of
         the defendants, and proceeded to record finding that the certified
         copy of the sale deed produced by the plaintiff pertained to some
         third party and did not relate to the plaintiff. The High Court further
         recorded a finding that the document was a forged document
         and that the suit filed by the plaintiff was a false suit. According
         to the High Court, since the suit was once dismissed for default
         on 05.07.2022 and the plaintiff did not take any steps for about
         a year, it showed that the plaintiff did not show interest for long,
         and that it implied that the defence of the defendants was a
         valid defence. The High Court viewed that the ground of fraud
         was substantially established by the defendants. According to
         the High Court, the continuation of the suit was not necessary.
         On such grounds, the High Court exercised its Constitutional
         jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, allowed the
         civil revision petition, and struck off the plaint.
4.   Heard learned advocate Mr. Abdulla Naseeh for the petitioner and
     learned senior advocate Mr. V. Prabhakar with learned advocate on
     record Mr. S. Rajappa for the respondents, at length.
     4.1 By referring to various judgments of this Court, it was submitted
         on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was not justified
         in the facts of the case in exercising the powers under Article
         227 of the Constitution and pursuant to exercise of such powers,
         to set aside the plaint. It was submitted that the powers under
         Article 227 of the Constitution are supervisory, to be exercised
         sparingly. More particularly, when specific provision in the form
         of Order VII Rule 11, CPC exists in the statute book under which
         the defendant could have filed its application, a manifest error
         was committed by the High Court, it was submitted.
564                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       4.2 Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
           submitted that the supervisory powers of the High Court under
           Article 227 are wide enough and when the High Court found
           that the suit-plaint was liable to be struck off, no exception
           could be taken for invoking the powers. Learned counsel for
           the respondent also referred to the provision of Order VI Rule
           16, CPC, which permits the Court to strike off the pleadings.
5.     Article 227 of the Constitution invests the power of superintendence
       over all courts by the High Court. Sub-Article(1) thereof provides that
       every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and
       tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
       jurisdiction. As per sub-Article(2), without prejudice to the generality
       of the provisions in sub-Article (1), the High Court may (a) call for
       returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and
       prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such
       courts and (c) prescribe forms in which the books and accounts etc.
       to be kept by the officers of courts. As per sub-Article (3), the High
       Court may also settle tables of fees. Sub-Article (4) provides that
       nothing in the Article shall deem to confer on a High Court powers
       of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under
       any law relating to the Armed Forces.
       5.1 The scope, ambit, amplitude and nature of the powers of a High
           Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are discussed and
           delineated by this Court in catena of decisions. Article 227 is
           perceived to be a custodian of justice, which is in the nature
           of extraordinary supervisory powers, discretionary in nature. In
           Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil1, this Court
           cautioned that an improper and frequent exercise of this power
           will be counterproductive and would divest this extraordinary
           power of its strength and vitality. It was observed that this
           discretionary power has to be exercised very sparingly.
             5.1.1 The reserve of exceptional power of judicial intervention
                   is not to be exercised just for granting of relief in
                   individual cases but should be directed for the promotion
                   of public confidence in the administration of justice. It is
                   emphasized that though the power under Article 227 may


1    (2010) 8 SCC 329
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                               565

                          P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


                       be unfettered, its exercise is subject to high degree of
                       judicial discipline. The Court observed in Shalini Shyam
                       Shetty (supra), ‘The power of interference under Article
                       227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel
                       of justice does not come to halt and the foundation of
                       justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain
                       public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and
                       courts subordinate to the High Court.’
     5.2 Similarly, in State vs. Navjot Sandhu2, the powers of the High
         Court under Article 227 came to be explained by this Court
         observing that the powers available to the High Court under
         Article 227 of the Constitution are not meant for and not to be
         exercised just for the purpose of correcting errors. It was held:
                   ‘It is settled law that this power of judicial
                   superintendence, under Article 227, must be
                   exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate
                   courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority
                   and not to correct mere errors. Further, where the
                   statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would
                   require very exceptional circumstances to warrant
                   interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                   India since the power of superintendence was not
                   meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law
                   that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be
                   exercised “as the cloak of an appeal in disguise.’
                                                                 (Para 28)

     5.3 In A. Venkateshubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan3, this Court
         held that ‘though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the
         constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well-recognised
         principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court
         should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies before
         he resorts to a constitutional remedy.’



2   (2003) 6 SCC 641
3   (2000) 7 SCC 695
566                                                              [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       5.4 In Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala and Anr.4,
           this Court reiterated that the supervisory power under Article
           227 of the Constitution available to the High Court is not for a
           routine exercise, it is meant to keep the courts and tribunals
           within the bounds of their jurisdiction or where grave miscarriage
           of justice has occurred or there is a flagrant violation of law.
           What was stated was that the jurisdiction under Article 227
           cannot be exercised ‘in the cloak of an appeal in disguise’, it
           cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum.
       5.5 In K.Valarmathi and Ors. vs. Kumaresan5, this Court reiterated
           the same principles for exercising the powers under Article 227
           of the Constitution by the High Courts as under,
                        ‘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.’
                                                                   (Para 9)

            5.5.1 It was further observed, which observation may also be
                  pertinently reproduced,
                           ‘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.’
                                                                  (Para 10)



4   (2019) 20 SCC 143
5   2025 SCC OnLine SC 985
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           567

                       P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


     5.6 In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai
         and Others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others6,
         the appellants therein had filed a suit for declaration and
         permanent injunction. In the said suit proceedings, the trial
         court passed order granting an injunction. Respondent No. 5
         in the suit called in question the order of granting injunction
         by filing a regular appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the
         Civil Procedure Code, 1908. But the Defendant Nos. 1 and
         6 challenged the said order of injunction not by filing regular
         appeal but by invoking the powers of the High Court under
         Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the
         said civil revision petition and set aside the order of injunction
         granted by the trial court.
            5.6.1 The exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227
                  of the Constitution by the High Court to challenge the
                  injunction order was strongly disapproved by this court,
                  observing that the High Court ought to have seen that
                  when remedy of appeal under Section 104 read with
                  Order XLIII Rule 1(r), CPC, was directly available,
                  Defendant Nos.1 and 6-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before
                  this Court ought to have taken recourse to the same.
            5.6.2 In Virudhunagar (supra), by categorizing the cases
                  where the remedy is available under the provisions of
                  the Civil Procedure Code and the cases where such
                  remedial provisions exist under special statutes, this
                  Court emphasised that in cases falling under the first
                  category, where there is availability of remedy in terms of
                  the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the existence
                  of such remedy has to be treated as almost a complete
                  bar against applying powers under Article 227 of the
                  Constitution in that regard.
            5.6.3 The Court observed thus,
                       ‘…courts should always bear in mind a distinction
                       between (i) cases where such alternative
                       remedy is available before civil courts in terms


6   (2019) 9 SCC 538
568                                                             [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                        of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, and
                        (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is
                        available under special enactments and/or
                        statutory rules and the fora provided therein
                        happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and
                        tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the
                        first category, which may involve suits and other
                        proceedings before civil courts, the availability of
                        an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of
                        CPC, may have to be construed as a near total
                        bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone
                        may challenge in a revision under Article 227,
                        even a decree passed in a suit, on the same
                        grounds on which Respondents 1 and 2 invoked
                        the jurisdiction of the High Court.’
                                                                 (Para 12)

       5.7 The statement of law observed by a Three-Judge Bench of this
           Court in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath7, while overruling
           the earlier decision in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai8,
           was recollected, that ‘orders of civil courts stand on a different
           footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other
           than judicial/ Civil Court’, stating further as under,
                   ‘Therefore wherever the proceedings are under
                   the Civil Procedure Code and the forum is the civil
                   court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC,
                   will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure
                   of self-imposed restriction, but as a matter of
                   discipline and prudence, from exercising its power
                   of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence,
                   the High Court ought not to have entertained the
                   revision under Article 227 especially in a case where
                   a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the
                   Civil Procedure Code itself.’
                                                                 (Para 13)


7   (2015) 5 SCC 423
8   (2003) 6 SCC 675
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            569

                       P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


6.   In the case on hand, the High Court has exercised its supervisory
     powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and proceeded to set
     aside the plaint. The invocation of such powers are sought to be
     justified by the defendants – respondents by stating that the amplitude
     of such power is vast and pervasive, which was duly exercised by
     the High Court to strike off the erroneous plaint. A shelter is also
     taken from the provision of Order VI Rule 16, CPC to submit that it
     is a provision under which frivolous or vexatious proceedings could
     be struck off, reading it with powers of superintendence under Article
     227 of the Constitution.
     6.1 For easy reference, the provision of Order VI Rule 16 CPC is
         extracted hereinbelow,
                    ‘16. Striking out pleadings.
                    The Court may at any stage of the proceedings
                    order to be struck out or amended any matter
                    in any pleading- (a) which may be unnecessary,
                    scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or (b) which
                    may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair
                    trail of the suit, or (c) which is otherwise an abuse
                    of the process of the Court.’
           6.1.1 The bare perusal of the aforementioned provision
                 mandates procedural defects whereby the courts can
                 exercise their discretionary power to strike out any matter
                 in any pleading. Such discretion could be exercised
                 cautiously and only when the parameter stipulated
                 under the said provision are apparent, such as, when
                 the matter in the pleading is unnecessary, scandalous,
                 frivolous or vexatious or it is of such a nature it tends
                 to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit
                 or it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
     6.2 Now, there is a specific provision under the CPC in the nature
         of Order VII Rule 11, which deals with the rejection of the plaint,
         which mentions specific grounds on which the court may reject
         the plaint. The said provision is reproduced herein,
                ‘11. Rejection of plaint.
                The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
                (a)    where it does not disclose a cause of action;
570                                                      [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


              (b)   where the relief claimed is undervalued, and
                    the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to
                    correct the valuation within a time to be fixed
                    by the Court, fails to do so;
              (c)   where the relief claimed is properly valued, but
                    the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently
                    stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required
                    by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-
                    paper within a time to be fixed by the Court,
                    fails to do so;
              (d)   where the suit appears from the statement in
                    the plaint to be barred by any law;’
              (e)   where it is not filed in duplicate;
              (f)   where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
                    provisions of rule 9.
                    …..’
       6.2.1 The provision says that the plaint shall be rejected
             in the following cases, firstly, if it does not disclose a
             cause of action. Now, the cause of action is a bundle of
             facts. Whether cause of action exists for the purpose of
             validly instituting the suit or not would necessarily require
             a factual inquiry. The second ground is that the relief
             claimed when undervalued and the plaintiff, on being
             required by the Court to correct the valuation and pay
             the deficit court fee within the time which may be fixed
             by the Court, fails to do so. The third ground mentioned
             for rejection of the plaint is similar with regard to the
             plaint which is insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff
             has failed to supply the requisite stamp paper within
             the time fixed by the court.
       6.2.2 The fourth ground is about the suit appearing from the
             statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Though
             this may be a legal consideration, the attendant facts
             would become relevant and the issue may not always
             be finally adjudged without application of facts. The fifth
             ground is that the plaint is not filed in duplicate. This
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                          571

                       P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


                    is curable defect and a procedural aspect. The sixth
                    ground is where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
                    provisions of Rule 9, which is also not to be immune
                    from consideration of facts of the case.
           6.2.3 As far as the ground of correction of valuation for
                 supplying of the stamp paper is concerned, the proviso
                 mentions that time may be extended by the Court, for
                 the reasons to be recorded, if the court is satisfied that
                 the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of exceptional
                 nature. There is no gainsaying that there will have to be
                 factual inquiry in the process of determination for rejection
                 of plaint and for the satisfaction to be arrived at by the
                 Court with regard to the extension of time, which the
                 court may grant. Therefore, it would be entirely proper to
                 conclude that when the grounds for rejection of the plaint,
                 provided in statutory provision, require the consideration
                 of the facts of the case, such issue should not be gone into
                 by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
                 of the Constitution, which even otherwise is supposed
                 to be exercised by the Court sparingly and not just for
                 the purpose of correcting purported errors. In any view,
                 the overriding criteria in law is that the supervisory
                 jurisdiction cannot be applied to substitute the remedy
                 available specifically in the CPC itself.
     6.3 While the principal issue addressed in the present appeal is
         about the principle whether the High Court could have exercised
         its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to
         strike off the plaint, even though a specific provision for rejection
         of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was available to
         the defendants to be taken recourse to, it is also to be noted
         additionally that the dispute in the suit was essentially a title
         dispute between the parties. Secondly, the defence of the
         defendants was that the suit was fraudulent and based on false
         documents. The High Court accepted the said contentions and
         struck down the plaint vide its powers under Article 227 of the
         Constitution.
           6.3.1 In Shalini Shyam Shetty1, this Court in Paragraph 64 of
                 the judgment has flagged the growing tendency among
572                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                   the High Courts to entertain writ petitions in cases of
                   property disputes, partition suits, matters relating to the
                   execution of decrees, landlord-tenant disputes, money
                   decrees and in respect of such other various cases
                   and has disapproved the same and held that the High
                   Courts could not in a routine manner entertain petitions
                   under Article 227.
            6.3.2 It has to be acknowledged that almost all civil suits would
                  involve disputed question of facts. The averment in plaint
                  quite often than not, raise controversy which, in ultimate
                  analysis, is to be addressed and adjudicated by leading
                  evidence. As these are the disputes of civil nature to
                  be dealt with by the civil court, and the invocation of
                  Constitutional powers thereover in a routine manner may
                  not be necessary nor is advisable. This proposition, in its
                  analogousness, would justify holding that powers under
                  Article 227 of the Constitution would not be available
                  to be exercised where there is an alternative remedy.
       6.4 For the very above reasoning, the reliance placed on the
           provision of Order VI Rule 16, CPC to support the impugned
           order and to justify the exercise of powers under Article 227 of
           the Constitution for striking out the plaint, is misconceived in
           law. Order VI Rule 16, CPC deals with the question of striking
           out pleadings, to provide that the Court may, at any stage of the
           proceedings, order to be struck out or amended in any matter
           in any pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or
           vexatious or which may tend to prejudice or embarrass the fair
           trial of the suit or which is otherwise an abuse of the process
           of Court.
            6.4.1 Evidently, this provision deals with the striking out of
                  a part or a section of the pleading which suffers from
                  any of the kinds mentioned in the provision, such
                  as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious,
                  prejudicial, embarrassing or delaying the fair trial or abuse
                  of the process of law. It would be stretching beyond the
                  logic of law to interpret and imply that Order VI Rule 16
                  can be utilized and employed for striking down the entire
                  plaint. Striking down the plaint or rejection of plaint on
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                             573

                       P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


                    the legal grounds available in Order VII Rule 11, CPC
                    is entirely different than striking out the infirm or abusive
                    pleadings. Under the guise of invoking Order VI Rule 16,
                    CPC, therefore, justification for using the powers under
                    Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be extended.
7.   When the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are of
     supervisory nature and when the aforestated settled dictum of law
     is that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court
     of error, it would logically follow that the powers under Article 227
     would not be exercised when the non-exercise of such powers does
     not result into miscarriage of justice or deprivation of remedy in law
     to a party.
     7.1 It is to be conceived as one of the prohibited area for exercising
         Article 227 powers where, in respect of the grievance for which
         party has remedy in law, these powers are surely to be invoked.
         The principle is therefore to be emphasized that the exercise
         of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
         has to be treated as an exceptional resort when an alternative
         efficacious civil remedy by way of appeal or revision or any other,
         like Order VII Rule 11, CPC in the present case, is available to
         the party for the redressal of the grievance.
     7.2 The proposition that the availability of alternative remedy
         shall be legitimately construed to displace the exercise of
         Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court, is true not only
         for the purpose of exercising powers under Article 226 of the
         Constitution but also for the purpose of invoking Article 227
         of the Constitution.
     7.3 In the garb of exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article
         227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to
         engulf the specific statutory remedy or provision in law and,
         thus, become a supervisor over the court below or the tribunal,
         as the case may be. It would be a legally wise exercise of
         discretion for the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-
         imposed discipline and to insist that the aggrieved party should
         take recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision
         available in law, especially, for the case falling in category
         indicated in Virudhunagar6 (supra) where remedy available
574                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            in the CPC for the cases falling under category/other law also,
            where such specific statutory remedy is available, the dictum
            laid down herein is true to grant extent.
       7.4 As stated above, embargo in this regard would have to be
           construed as near total when provision is available in CPC. It
           is held, therefore, that once the specific provision under Order
           VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot
           exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off the plaint.
           For such relief, the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11,
           CPC, will have to be resorted to, on the grounds mentioned in
           the said provision.
8.     In adopting such approach, the High Court would be giving due regard
       to the legislative intent. When the legislature has enacted specific
       remedial provision to be taken recourse to by the person aggrieved
       to challenge the orders and decisions of the court to seek redress
       in law accordingly that remedy alone will have to be sought for.
9.     From the aforesaid discussion, it would logically follow that the High
       Court would not only discourage but desist from exercising jurisdiction
       under Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of a challenge for
       which a separate, distinct, and specific remedy or statutory provision
       is available under the statute concerned. Availability of an alternative
       civil remedy and/or under the CPC shall be treated as complete and
       near total bar on the High Court to venture to invoke and exercise its
       power available under Article 227 of the Constitution, except where
       exercise of supervisory jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the view
    that High Court committed a manifest error in exercising its powers
    under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike down the plaint. It ought
    to have asked the defendant to take recourse to, in accordance with
    law, when specific provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure,
    1908 in the nature of Order VII Rule 11. The impugned judgment
    and order of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
       10.1 As a result, the judgment and order dated 03.06.2025 passed
            by the High Court of Madras in CRP No. 3197 of 2024 and
            CMP No. 17106 of 2024 striking off the plaint of Original Suit
            No. 93 of 2020 before the Court of District Munsif, Tambaram,
            is hereby set aside.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            575

                        P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors.


11. The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the suit is restored to its
    original file and parties are directed to appear before the trial court
    for further proceedings on 16.02.2026 without awaiting further notice.
    Liberty is reserved for the defendants to file application under Order
    VII Rule 11, CPC, to be considered strictly in accordance with law.
    There shall be no costs.
     In view of the disposal of the main appeal, all interlocutory applications,
     as may be pending, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan