logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 275 print Preview print Next print
Case No : Civil Appeal No. 8009 of 2016
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Parties : R. Srinivasan Versus M/s. Southern & Rajamani Tpt P.Ltd. & Others\r\n
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondents: ------
Date of Judgment : 28-01-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 11 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution
- Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

2. Catch Words:
- Specific performance
- Revision petition
- Petition under Article 227
- Interim ex parte order

3. Summary:
The appellant challenged a High Court order that treated a petition under Article 227 as an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and struck out the original suit. The suit for specific performance dated 2010 was originally filed based on a 2000 sale agreement. The High Court had allowed the revision petition, directing the strike‑off of the plaint, which the appellant contended was a procedural overreach. The Supreme Court referred to precedents emphasizing that a High Court should not entertain constitutional remedies when alternative procedural remedies exist. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the original suit to its proper number, and directed the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously without commenting on its merits.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. The plaintiff is in appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the High Court in CRP No. 463 of 2010, entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as if it is an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and disposing of the suit.

2. The short facts are that the appellant instituted a suit for specific performance in the year 2010 on the basis of an Agreement for Sale dated 20.09.2000. Certain defendants approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for rejecting the plaint.

3. As indicated earlier, by the order impugned before us, the High Court allowed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and directed as under :-

                   "34. It has already been pointed out that a grave injustice has been done to the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37 by way of impleading them in Original Suit No. 3 of 2010 and further the Principal District Court, Pudukottai has also done equal and clear injustice to them by way of taking the plaint on file in Original Suit No. 3 of 2010. Under the said circumstances, the plaint filed in Original Suit No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai is liable to be struck off in respect of the revision petitioners/defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 37."

4. There is no doubt about the fact that the High Court cannot entertain the petitions of this nature for rejecting the plaint. This issue has been considered by this Court in "K. Valarmathi & Ors. Vs. Kumaresan"; 2025 INSC 606, the relevant paragraph of which is extracted thus :-

                   "14. Procedural law provides the necessary legal infrastructure on which edifice of rule of law is built. Shortcircuiting 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."

5. In "A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan and Ors." reported in (2000) 7 SCC 695, this Court has observed as under :-

                   "22. Now what remains is the question whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies.

                   Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court it is a well recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy. Learned single judge need not have entertained the revision petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. Be that as it may, now it is idle to embark on that aspect as the High Court had chosen to entertain the revision petition."

6. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment and order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the High Court is set aside. Consequently, the Original Suit, being O.S. No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court at Pudukkottai is restored to its original number.

7. Since the suit is of the year 2010, there shall be a direction that the trial court shall consider and dispose of as expeditiously as possible, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

8. It is necessary to make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal