In a clear reminder about judicial limits, the Supreme Court on February 3, 2026 restored a civil suit that had been thrown out by the Madras High Court using its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The top court held that when the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides a specific remedy, High Courts should not bypass it by striking off a plaint through supervisory jurisdiction. The ruling came in P. Suresh vs. D. Kalaivani & Ors., arising from a long-running land dispute in Tamil Nadu.
Background of the Case
The dispute began with a suit filed by P. Suresh before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, seeking a permanent injunction to protect his possession of certain survey lands. Suresh claimed the property originally belonged to one Sambandam Chettiar and was later sold to his mother, Meena, in 1975. After her death, he said, he inherited the land and got the revenue records changed in his name.
The defendants, however, painted a very different picture. They challenged the sale deed itself, calling it fabricated and unrelated to the suit property. According to them, their family had owned and cultivated the land for decades, and they remained in possession. When the suit moved forward, they approached the Madras High Court under Article 227, asking it to strike off the plaint instead of contesting the case before the trial court.
The High Court accepted their plea. It went into the documents, concluded that the sale deed relied on by Suresh was forged, described the suit as false, and struck off the plaint altogether. That order effectively ended the suit before evidence could be tested.
Hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court focused on a narrow but important question: could the High Court use its supervisory powers under Article 227 to strike off a plaint when the CPC already provides a specific procedure for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11?
Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the bench, walked through earlier judgments explaining that Article 227 is meant to keep courts within their limits, not to act as a hidden appeal. The Court noted that the CPC is a “self-contained code” and has clear rules on when and how a plaint can be rejected.
“The power under Article 227 is supervisory and has to be exercised very sparingly,” the bench observed, reminding that it cannot be used as “a cloak of an appeal in disguise.”
Court’s Observations
The judges pointed out that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC lists specific grounds on which a plaint can be rejected such as when it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. Deciding these issues often requires looking at facts, something a trial court is meant to do.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside 13-Year-Old Ex Parte Decree, Flags Lapses in Service of Notice
The Court also rejected the argument that Order VI Rule 16, which allows striking out parts of pleadings, could justify wiping out an entire plaint. That rule, it said, is meant to remove unnecessary or abusive portions, not to end a suit altogether.
Importantly, the bench noted that property disputes usually involve contested facts and documents.
“Such controversies are meant to be tested through evidence,” the Court said in substance, adding that jumping in under Article 227 at this stage short-circuits the normal process.
Read also:- J&K High Court Upholds School Fee Regulation Law but Sets Clear Limits on Govt Control Over Private Schools
Decision
In the end, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s order and restored the suit to the trial court’s file. It held that the High Court committed a “manifest error” by using Article 227 to strike off the plaint when the defendants could have applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court on February 16, 2026, and gave the defendants liberty to move a proper application under the CPC if they still wish to challenge the plaint. With that, the appeal was allowed and the suit revived, bringing the focus back to the trial court where the factual dispute will now proceed.
Case Title:- P. Suresh vs. D. Kalaivani & Others
Bench:- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
