High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court

"Availability of alternative remedy under CPC shall be treated as complete and near total bar on the High Court to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, " Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the High Court cannot invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off a plaint when a specific statutory remedy is available under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

A single-bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that Article 227 should be treated as an exceptional resort and cannot be used to bypass the procedural requirements of the CPC.

The case arose from a Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 278 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pollachi. The petitioners sought to strike off the plaint, alleging that the suit was a clear abuse of the process of law and was barred by the principles of res sub judice and lis pendens. They contended that an earlier suit for specific performance regarding the same property was already pending adjudication.

The primary question before the Court was whether the High Court ought to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a plaint when the petitioners have not exhausted the alternative remedy available under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Article 227 Power Is Supervisory, Not Appellate

The Court emphasized that the power vested in the High Court under Article 227 is essentially supervisory in nature. The bench noted that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error when exercising this jurisdiction. It logically follows that such powers should not be exercised when the non-exercise of the same does not result in a miscarriage of justice or deprivation of a legal remedy.

The judge further observed that the High Court is not expected to "engulf" specific statutory remedies provided by law. By adhering to this self-imposed discipline, the Court ensures that the legislative intent behind procedural codes is respected. The bench underscored that judicial discretion must be exercised wisely to prevent the supervisory jurisdiction from supplanting the original jurisdiction of the trial courts.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is An Efficacious Alternative Remedy

The Court highlighted that the CPC is a self-contained code that provides a specific mechanism for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This provision enumerates the circumstances under which a trial court may reject a plaint, such as where it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law. The bench held that the High Court cannot reject or strike off a plaint under Article 227 when this specific provision is available to the aggrieved party.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in P. Suresh Vs D. Kalaivani (2026 INSC 121), the Court noted that the availability of a remedy under the CPC constitutes a "near total bar" on the High Court's interference under Article 227. The bench stated that the specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 must be resorted to on the grounds mentioned therein before the trial court itself.

Rejection Of Plaint Constitutes A Deemed Decree

The Court further pointed out the legal consequence of an order passed under Order VII Rule 11. It noted that the rejection of a plaint amounts to a "deemed decree" as per the definitions in the CPC. Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 96 of the CPC before the appropriate appellate forum. This statutory scheme further reinforces why Article 227 should not be invoked prematurely.

"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."

The bench concluded that entertaining such revision petitions would upend the statutory scheme intended by the legislature. It held that the petitioners must first approach the trial court with an application for rejection of the plaint. Only in cases where the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction becomes "absolutely necessary" to prevent a gross failure of justice would the High Court step in.

In view of these observations, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. However, it granted the petitioners the liberty to invoke the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC before the Sub-Court, Pollachi, to seek the striking off or rejection of the plaint.

Date of Decision: 05 June 2026