LexP. SURESH versus D.KALAIVANI & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 558 : 2026 INSC 121 P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2026) 03 February 2026 [Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Could the High Court entertain an application invoking and exercising its powers of superintendence u/Art.227 of the Constitution, even where a specific remedial provision available in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) relating to the subject matter – issue is the focal point arising to be addressed in the present appeal. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII R.11, Or.VI R.16 – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court – What is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the appellant-original plaintiff, is the judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 03.06.2025 in CRP No.3197 of 2024 and CMP No.17106 of 2024, which were the proceedings of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant u/Art.227 of the Constitution, whereby, the High Court allowed the Revision Petition and struck off the plaint in Original Suit No.93 of 2020 before the Court of District Munsif – Correctness: Held: In the garb of exercising supervisory jurisdiction u/Art.227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to engulf the specific statutory remedy or provision in law and, thus, become a supervisor over the court below or the tribunal, as the case may be – It would be a legally wise exercise of discretion for the High Court to adopt and adhere to such self-imposed discipline and to insist that the aggrieved party should take recourse to such alternative remedy or statutory provision available in law – Embargo in this regard would have to be construed as near total when provision is available in CPC – It is held, therefore, that once the specific provision u/Or.VII, R.11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers u/Art.227 to reject or strike off the * Author [2026] 2 S.C.R. 559 P. Suresh v. D.Kalaivani & Ors. plaint – For such relief, the specific provision u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC, will have to be resorted to, on the grounds mentioned in the said provision – In adopting such approach, the High Court would be giving due regard to the legislative intent – When the legislature has enacted specific remedial provision to be taken recourse to by the person aggrieved to challenge the orders and decisions of the court to seek redress in law accordingly that remedy alone will have to be sought for – This court is of the view that High Court committed a manifest error in exercising its powers u/Art.227 of the Constitution to strike down the plaint – It ought to have asked the defendant to take recourse to, in accordance with law, when specific provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the nature of Or.VII, R.11 – The impugned judgment and order of the High Court, therefore, is set aside – Consequently, the suit is restored to its original file. [Paras 7.3, 7.4, 8-11] Constitution of India – Art.227 – Superintendence over all courts – Explained: Held: Art.227 of the Constitution invests the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court – Sub-Article (1) thereof provides that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction – As per sub-Article (2), without prejudice to the generality of the provisions in sub-Article (1), the High Court may (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts and (c) prescribe forms in which the books and accounts etc. to be kept by the officers of courts – As per sub-Article (3), the High Court may also settle tables of fees – Sub-Article (4) provides that nothing in the Article shall deem to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces – The reserve of exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for granting of relief in individual cases but should be directed for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice – It is emphasized that though the power u/Art.227 may be unfettered, its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. [Paras 5, 5.1.1] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VI, R.16 – Or.VII, R.11 – Discussed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.