CAN HIGH COURT REJECT THE PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC, 1908.

Characteristics of the Supervisory Power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and Its Power to Reject Plaint

INTRODUCTION

Article 227 of the Constitution of India vests every High Court with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. This supervisory jurisdiction is both judicial and administrative in nature, distinct from the original, appellate, or revisional jurisdiction. The fundamental purpose of this power is to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals function within the ambit of the law, upholding judicial discipline and preventing miscarriage of justice. The supervisory power under Article 227 empowers the High Court to call for returns and records from lower courts, make and issue general rules for regulating court procedures, prescribe forms for maintaining court records, and settle fee tables for court officers and legal practitioners. However, this authority acts as a constitutional check rather than a forum for reappraising evidence or factual findings, which remain within the trial court's domain.

KEY CHARACTERISTICS

One key characteristic of Article 227 supervision is its sparing and exceptional use. The High Court may intervene only when there is an apparent jurisdictional error, gross miscarriage of justice, or when a subordinate court exercises jurisdiction it does not possess or refuses to exercise a jurisdiction it does have. The supervisory role is thus a safeguard for legal propriety and not a substitute for appeals or statutory remedies. Regarding the power to reject plaints, the High Court under Article 227 has no authority to reject a plaint by exercising its supervisory jurisdiction. The rejection of a plaint is governed exclusively by procedural statutes, primarily Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If a plaint is rejected by a trial court, the aggrieved party has the statutory right to appeal to the High Court, preserving procedural fairness.

Any attempt by the High Court to reject a plaint under Article 227 would be an overreach of its supervisory jurisdiction, effectively usurping the original jurisdiction of the trial court and bypassing the legislature-prescribed appeal mechanism. Supreme Court rulings have reaffirmed that Article 227 powers should not be exercised to supplant established procedural safeguards or to pre-empt the trial court's jurisdiction. In the case of  K. Valarmathi vs Kumaresan, it was helad as follows:-

 K. Valarmathi vs Kumaresan (Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 21466 of 2024)

The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court cannot reject a plaint using its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that Article 227 confers only supervisory jurisdiction and cannot replace the trial court's original jurisdiction or overrule the statutory remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Rejection of plaint is governed by Order VII Rule 11 CPC and such rejection amounts to a deemed decree appealable under Section 96 CPC. The Court set aside the Madras High Court’s rejection of plaint, which wrongly exercised supervisory power to reject the plaint and thus denied the petitioner a right of appeal.

ANALYSIS

In conclusion, the supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 serves as an essential constitutional instrument to maintain judicial order and legality among subordinate courts without encroaching upon the trial courts’ procedural functions. The limitation on rejecting plaints emphasize the High Court's role as a supervisor, not a trial court, preserving the balance between oversight and judicial process.