C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Civil Revision Petition No.2092 of 2023 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.12821 of 2023 1.Mohansundaram 2.M.Bhuvaneswari ... Petitioners / Defendants Vs. 1.M.Padmanapan 2.Deviki 3.Lakshmi 4.Pushpa @ Venkatalakshmi 5.Chengiya 6.Gowriammal 7.Thatchayani ... Respondents / Plaintiffs 8.Mr.Pangaj Agarwal ... Respondent / 3rd defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to reject the plaint in O.S.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Munuswamy For Respondent : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants 1 and 2 by invoking under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint in O.S.No.10 of 2023. on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi. 2.The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein, who are the plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 in the suit, have come forward with a suit for Specific performance against the petitioners herein, contenting that, they were the original owners and that their father was the absolute owner of the suit properties and other properties. He executed a General Power of Attorney, registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gummidipoondi, on 05.11.2007, in favour of one Mohanasundaram, to deal with the suit properties. Based on the Power of Attorney, the first defendant sold some of the lands to third parties and also to his family members, mutated the revenue records and obtained patta in his favour. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 3.The plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the said property without any interference and were doing on agricultural activities in the suit property. They have not received any sale consideration from the power of attorney holder. They are illiterates and have been cheated by the first defendant, who colluded with local land mafia in an attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs’ of the property. They have come forward with the suit for a permanent injunction. 4. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the petition to strike off the above plaint by invoking the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is stated by the petitioners herein that the Power of Attorney was executed as early as in the year 2007 and some of the properties were also sold, and the revenue records were also mutated. Knowing fully well all these facts, the plaintiffs have filed the suit with a false cause of action, as if they are in possession and the defendants are trying to dispossess them. It is also clearly stated by the plaintiffs that they have not received any sale consideration or accounts from the power of attorney holder. In such background, seeking an injunction against the owner of the properties is highly vexatious, and prayed to strike off the plaint. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 5.I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and also perused the materials available on record. 6.The Hon’ble Apex Court recently in P.Suresh vs. D.Kalaivani reported in 2026 INSC 121 has considered the scope for striking of plaint by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India has observed in para No.5, 5.1, 5.1.1 as follows: “5. Article   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. 5.1 The scope, ambit, amplitude and nature of the powers of a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are discussed and delineated by this Court in catena of decisions. Article 227 is perceived to be a custodian of justice, which is in the nature of extraordinary supervisory powers, discretionary in nature. In Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 Rajendra Shankar Patil1, this Court cautioned that an improper and frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and would divest   this   extraordinary   power   of   its   strength   and   vitality. It   was observed   that   this   discretionary   power   has   to   be   exercised   very sparingly. 5.1.1 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 under Article   227 may   be   unfettered,   its   exercise   is   subject   to   high degree   of   judicial   discipline. The   Court   observed   in Shalini   Shyam Shetty (supra), ‘The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to halt and the foundation of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.” 7.After considering various previous Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also after considering the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has held as follows: “7. When the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are of supervisory nature and when the aforestated settled dictum of law is that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error, it would logically follow that the powers under Article 227 would not be exercised when the non-exercise of such powers does not result into miscarriage of justice or deprivation of remedy in law to a party. 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 7.1   It   is   to   be   conceived   as   one   of   the   prohibited   area   for exercising Article 227 powers where, in respect of the grievance for which party has remedy in law, these powers are surely to be invoked. The   principle   is   therefore   to   be   emphasized   that   the   exercise   of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has to be treated as an exceptional resort when an alternative efficacious civil remedy by way of appeal or revision or any other, like Order VII Rule 11, CPC in the present case, is available to the party for the redressal of the grievance. 7.2 The proposition that the availability of alternative remedy shall be legitimately construed to displace the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court, is true not only for the purpose of exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution but also for the purpose of invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. 7.3 In the garb of exercising supervisoryjurisdiction under Article 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, especially, for the case falling in category  indicated in Virudhunagar6 (supra) where remedy available in the CPC for the cases falling under category/other law also, where such specific statutory remedy is available, the dictum laid down herein is true to grant extent. 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 7.4 As stated above, 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 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is available, the High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to   reject   or   strike   off   the   plaint. For   such   relief,   the   specific provision under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, will have to be resorted to, on the grounds mentioned in the said provision. 8. 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. 9. From the aforesaid discussion, it would logically follow that the High Court would not only discourage but desist from exercising jurisdiction   under Article   227 of   the   Constitution   in   respect   of   a challenge for which a separate, distinct, and specific remedy or statutory provision is available under the statute concerned. Availability of an alternative   civil   remedy   and/or   under the   CPC shall   be   treated   as complete and near total bar on the High Court to venture to invoke and exercise its power available under Article 227 of the Constitution, except where exercise of supervisory jurisdiction becomes absolutely necessary. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 10. For all the aforesaid reasons and discussions, this court is of the view that High Court committed a manifest error in exercising its powers under Article 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 Order VII Rule 11. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside.” 8. I have also carefully gone through the grounds raised for striking off the plaint, wherein it is stated that the suit is based on a vexatious claim and discloses no cause of action. It is also been stated that the suit is also filed after 16 years that too, for the relief of permanent injunction, is not maintainable. 9.In this case, the contention raised by the petitioners for striking of plaint is based on limitation and lack of cause of action. Since the points of limitation and cause of action can very well be considered by the Trial Court if a petition is filed under Order VI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as a matter of self-imposed discipline, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioners to take recourse to such alternative remedy. 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 10.Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Trial Court for availing the appropriate remedy. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. .06.2026 ssi Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Gummidipoondi.. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 K.RAJASEKAR , J. ssi C.R.P.No.2092 of 2023 .06.2026 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis