Order VII Rule 11 CPC Must Be Used to Reject Plaint Not Article 227: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clearly held that a High Court cannot reject or strike off a plaint while exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria observed that when a specific remedy is available under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the High Court should not invoke Article 227 to reject a plaint.

What Was the Dispute About?

The case arose from a civil suit where the plaintiff claimed ownership of a property through inheritance and sought a permanent injunction. The defendants opposed the claim, alleging that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff was forged and that the suit was fraudulent.

Instead of filing an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the defendants directly approached the High Court under Article 227. The High Court accepted their plea, examined the allegations of fraud, and struck off the plaint entirely.

Why Did the Supreme Court Interfere?

The plaintiff challenged this order before the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court held that the High Court committed a serious error by entertaining the writ petition when an effective alternative remedy was available under the CPC.

The Court clarified that the availability of a statutory remedy under civil law acts as a near-complete bar on the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, except in exceptional circumstances where such intervention is absolutely necessary.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the civil suit to its original file, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court. At the same time, liberty was given to the defendants to seek rejection of the plaint by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in accordance with law.

Case Title: P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 116