[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Nachimuthu vs Vidhyalakshmi on 14 August, 2025
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ______ OF 2025
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. _______ OF 2025]
[DIARY NO. 15652 OF 2025]
NACHIMUTHU & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
VIDHYALAKSHMI & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The issue in this appeal is no more res integra.
The High Court could not have exercised the
jurisdiction that it did while entertaining the Civil
Revision Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
4. The short facts, to the extent they are relevant
for the disposal of the present appeal are that the
appellants instituted a suit for declaration and
injunction against the defendants. The defendants in
turn filed a Revision Petition before the High Court
“to strike off the suit” on the ground that the
institution of the suit is illegal and abuse of the
process of the law.
5. In a recent Judgment in K. Valarmathi V.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.08.26
Kumaresan [Civil Appeal No. 5677 of 2025], this Court
17:58:24 IST
Reason:
has held as under :-
“8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is
2supervisory 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.
9. 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, 19085. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
3
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.”
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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
4decide 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.”
16. 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.”
6. In view of the above, the impugned Judgment
passed by the High Court is set aside and the appeal
stands allowed. Consequently, Suit O.S. No. 339 of
2022 stands restored to its original number and shall
proceed in accordance with law.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
……………………………………………………………………J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 14, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.15652/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-11-2024
in CRPMD No. 2123/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras at Madurai]
NACHIMUTHU & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VIDHYALAKSHMI & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 186936/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 186937/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE
DEFECTS
IA No. 186935/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 14-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. S. Mahadevan, Adv.
Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
Mr. R. Rangarajan, Adv.
Mr. Aravind Gopinathan, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shilp Vinod, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed
order placed on the file.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (NIDHI WASON)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[ad_2]
Source link