APEX COURT HELD THAT
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – Art. 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Scope and limitations – Availability of alternative remedy under Code of Civil Procedure – Whether High Court can strike off plaint under Art.227 when remedy under O.VII R.11 CPC exists – CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – O.VI R.16 & O.VII R.11 – Distinction between striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Fraudulent or vexatious suit – Scope.
Plaintiff instituted suit for permanent injunction claiming possession over suit property on basis of inheritance through mother under registered sale deed – Defendants disputed title and contended that sale deed relied upon by plaintiff was fabricated and fraudulent – Defendants filed Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 Constitution before High Court praying for striking off plaint by invoking principles underlying Order VII Rule 11 and Order VI Rule 16 CPC – High Court, after examining defence and disputed documents, recorded findings that plaintiff relied upon forged sale deed, suit was false and fraudulent, and consequently struck off plaint in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Sustainability.
Held : Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution is extraordinary, discretionary and supervisory in nature and cannot ordinarily be invoked where specific statutory remedy exists under Code of Civil Procedure. Availability of efficacious remedy under CPC constitutes near total bar against exercise of powers under Article 227 in matters arising from civil proceedings.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC specifically provides statutory mechanism for rejection of plaint on enumerated grounds including absence of cause of action or suit barred by law. Once legislature has provided specific remedy and procedure for rejection of plaint, High Court cannot bypass statutory framework and directly strike off plaint in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Exercise of powers under Article 227 cannot be permitted to supplant or substitute statutory remedies available under CPC. Supervisory jurisdiction is not intended to convert High Court into appellate or error-correcting forum in ordinary civil disputes.
Order VI Rule 16 CPC dealing with striking out pleadings operates in entirely different field from rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Order VI Rule 16 permits striking out of unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious portions of pleadings but does not authorise striking down of entire plaint. Rejection of plaint can be ordered only by resort to Order VII Rule 11 CPC and on grounds specified therein.
Questions whether plaint discloses cause of action, whether suit is barred by law, or whether allegations are fraudulent ordinarily involve factual inquiry and adjudication. Such issues cannot be conclusively determined in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 bypassing statutory procedure prescribed under CPC.
High Court committed manifest error in recording findings regarding alleged forgery and fraud in sale deed by examining disputed questions of fact in proceedings under Article 227 and striking off plaint without directing defendants to take recourse to Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Availability of alternative remedy under CPC must ordinarily deter High Court from exercising powers under Article 227 except in rare cases of grave miscarriage of justice or patent lack of jurisdiction.
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath; K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan; State v. Navjot Sandhu, relied on.
(Paras 5 to 10)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
Supreme Court undertook extensive examination of constitutional limitations governing exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution in civil proceedings.
Central issue before Court was:
whether High Court could directly strike off plaint under Article 227 when specific statutory remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was available to defendants.
Court analysed long line of precedents governing Article 227 and reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction:
- is extraordinary,
- must be exercised sparingly,
- cannot function as appellate jurisdiction,
- and cannot substitute statutory remedies available under CPC.
Supreme Court particularly emphasised distinction between:
-
correcting jurisdictional errors,
and - adjudicating ordinary civil disputes involving disputed questions of fact.
Court observed that High Court in present case virtually conducted mini-trial under Article 227 by:
- examining rival title claims,
- assessing genuineness of sale deed,
- accepting defence allegations of fraud,
- and recording findings that suit was false and fraudulent.
Such exercise, Court held, was wholly impermissible in supervisory jurisdiction.
Supreme Court then analysed structural distinction between:
-
Order VI Rule 16 CPC,
and - Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Court clarified:
- Order VI Rule 16 only enables striking out objectionable portions of pleadings,
- whereas rejection of entire plaint is governed exclusively by Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Therefore, Order VI Rule 16 cannot be used indirectly to justify striking down whole plaint under Article 227.
Court further stressed that grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC themselves often involve factual inquiry:
- whether plaint discloses cause of action,
- whether suit is barred by law,
-
whether valuation/stamp defects exist,
etc.
Hence, legislature intentionally created procedural framework requiring such questions to be examined by civil court itself. High Court could not bypass that framework through constitutional jurisdiction.
Supreme Court strongly reaffirmed principle laid down in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society that where remedy exists under CPC, exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction should be treated as “near total bar”.
Accordingly, impugned judgment striking off plaint was set aside and liberty reserved to defendants to file proper application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before trial court.
RATIO
Where specific statutory remedy for rejection of plaint exists under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, High Court cannot invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 Constitution to strike off plaint. Availability of efficacious remedy under CPC constitutes near total bar against exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction in ordinary civil proceedings. Order VI Rule 16 CPC permitting striking out of objectionable pleadings cannot be expanded to authorise striking down of entire plaint. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is exceptional in nature and cannot be used to bypass statutory procedures or adjudicate disputed questions of fact in civil suits.
