K. VALARMATHI & ORS. versus KUMARESAN

Leave granted.

p. 2462

Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 reject a plaint?

p. 2463

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 2018 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 2018 instituted by the appellants.

p. 2463

Respondent took out petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court praying for rejection of plaint in both the suits.

p. 2463

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. 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.

p. 2463

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.

p. 2463

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 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.

pp. 2463–2464

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.

p. 2464

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. 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.

p. 2464

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.

p. 2464

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.

p. 2464

We are conscious appellate remedy against rejection of plaint is not available if the High Court had in its revisional jurisdiction reversed the order of trial court and rejected the plaint. In Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers, 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.”

pp. 2464–2465

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.

p. 2465

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.

p. 2465

Similar issue fell for decision in Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors. 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 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.”

pp. 2465–2466

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

p. 2466