Summary
The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot use its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution to reject or strike off a plaint when Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides a specific remedy, and that Order VI Rule 16 CPC, which allows striking out parts of pleadings, cannot be used to strike out a whole plaint. The suit was restored, with liberty to the defendants to apply under Order VII Rule 11.
Issues
- Whether the High Court may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a plaint when Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides a specific remedy for rejection of a plaint.
- Whether Order VI Rule 16 CPC can justify striking out an entire plaint.
Provisions considered
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaSupervisory power to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their bounds, not to correct errors or act as an appeal in disguise. The availability of a remedy under the CPC is a near total bar to its exercise unless that becomes absolutely necessary. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6.2, 5.7, 7, 7.1, 7.4, 9)
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The specific provision for rejection of a plaint. Its grounds largely require a factual inquiry, so they should not be decided under Article 227; the defendants had to invoke this provision instead. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 7.4, 10, 11)
- Order VI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Permits striking out or amending any matter in a pleading that is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial or an abuse of process. Held to deal with parts of a pleading and not to authorise striking out a whole plaint. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.4, 6.4.1)
Held
- Article 227 confers an extraordinary, discretionary supervisory power to be exercised sparingly, to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within their authority, and not to correct mere errors or serve as an appeal in disguise. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.2, 5.4, 7)
- Where proceedings are under the CPC before a civil court, the availability of a CPC remedy operates as a near total bar to the High Court exercising Article 227 jurisdiction, except where supervisory intervention becomes absolutely necessary. The principle that an alternative remedy displaces constitutional jurisdiction applies to Article 227 as much as to Article 226. (¶¶ 5.6.2, 5.7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 9)
- Once Order VII Rule 11 CPC is available, the High Court cannot exercise Article 227 powers to reject or strike off a plaint. The grounds under that rule generally require examination of facts, which should not be undertaken in supervisory jurisdiction. (¶¶ 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 7.4, 8)
- Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits striking out offending parts of a pleading; reading it as a power to strike out an entire plaint stretches it beyond its logic, and it cannot justify use of Article 227 for that purpose. (¶¶ 6.4, 6.4.1)
- The suit was essentially a title dispute in which the defendants alleged fraud and fabricated documents. Such disputed questions of fact require evidence before the civil court, and the High Court committed a manifest error in deciding them under Article 227 and striking off the plaint. (¶¶ 6.3, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order striking off the plaint set aside and the suit restored to the trial court's file, with the parties directed to appear on 16.02.2026; the defendants given liberty to apply under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; no costs.