SUPREME COURT: HIGH COURT CANNOT REJECT PLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 227:

SUPREME COURT: HIGH COURT CANNOT REJECT PLAINT UNDER ARTICLE 227:

The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court does not have the authority to reject a plaint by exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. This decision was made by a bench consisting of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while hearing a petition that contested the Madras High Court’s rejection of a plaint on the grounds that it was barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.

The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the High Court, stating that the supervisory power granted under Article 227 does not permit a High Court to assume the role and responsibilities of the Trial Court.

The judgment authored by Justice Bagchi stated : 

"Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory 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.

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."

The Court observed that the Civil Procedure Code is a comprehensive and self-contained statute, and Order VII Rule 11 specifically outlines the conditions under which a Trial Court is empowered to reject a plaint. It further stated that such a rejection is treated as a deemed decree, which can be challenged through an appeal 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," the Court stated.

In the current case, the High Court not only assumed the role of the court of first instance but also effectively nullified a valuable right of appeal that would have been available to the appellant if the matter had been decided by the Trial Court initially.

The Supreme Court further stated: 

"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."

The Court also referred to the 2014 judgment in Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony & Others, which held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court distinguished the 2022 precedent in Frost (International) Ltd. v. Milan Developers, noting that in that case, the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to reject the plaint, specifically reviewing the Trial Court’s refusal to do so.