LexK. VALARMATHI & ORS. versus KUMARESAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2461 : 2025 INSC 606 K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan (Civil Appeal No. 5677 of 2025) 29 April 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 reject a plaint. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Supervisory jurisdiction – Rejection of plaint by the High Court u/Art.227 of the Constitution – Correctness: Held: 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 – 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 u/s.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 – In the instant 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 – 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 – Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 9-11, 14, 16] * Author 2462 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Ors. [2014] 5 SCR 85 : (2014) 6 SCC 508 – relied on. Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society [2019] 13 SCR 634 : (2019) 9 SCC 538; Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers [2022] 14 SCR 1100 : (2022) 8 SCC 633 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. List of Keywords Article 227; Supervisory jurisdiction; Rejection of plaint; Usurping the original jurisdiction of court; Statutory Scheme; Procedural law; Short-circuiting of procedure. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5677 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRPMD No. 210 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: M Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, A S Naushad, Ms. Puspita Basak, Tarun. Advs. for the Respondent: R. Baskaran, Sr. Adv., S.Raju, Arivazhagan Ac, V.C. Venkatachalam, Ms. Aswathi M.K. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. Leave granted. [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2463 K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan 2. Can the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 reject a plaint? 3. 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 20181 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 20182 instituted by the appellants. 4. Respondent took out petitions3 under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court praying for rejection of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.