P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani 2026 INSC 121 - Art.227 Constitution - CPC - Rejection Of Plaint - Striking Off Pleading
Constitution of India - Article 227 ; Code of Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11: 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. (Para 7.4) . 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. (Para 9)
Order VI Rule 16 - Order VII Rule 11 - Order VI Rule 16 deals with the striking out of a part or a section of the pleading which suffers from any of the kinds mentioned in the provision, such as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial, embarrassing or delaying the fair trial or abuse of the process of law. It would be stretching beyond the logic of law to interpret and imply that Order VI Rule 16 can be utilized and employed for striking down the entire plaint. Striking down the plaint or rejection of plaint on the legal grounds available in Order VII Rule 11, CPC is entirely different than striking out the infirm or abusive pleadings. (Para 6.4.1)
Constitution of India - Article 226,227 - 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. (Para 7.2)
Case Info
Case name: P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani & Ors.Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 121
Coram:Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Judgment date:03 February 2026 (pronounced at New Delhi)
Case laws and citations referred:
- Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329
- State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641
- A. Venkateshubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695
- Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr., 2019 (20) SCC 143
- K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985
- Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. v. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 538
- Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423
- Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 (referred to as overruled)
Statutes / provisions referred:
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
- Order VI Rule 16 (striking out pleadings)
- Order VII Rule 11 (rejection of plaint)
- Order XLIII Rule 1(r) and Section 104 CPC (appeal against interim injunction orders)
- Section 96 CPC (appeal from original decree)
- Order VII Rule 9 (referred via Order VII Rule 11(f))
Brief summary (three sentences):This Supreme Court judgment holds that when a specific remedy for rejection of plaint exists under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court should not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a plaint, save in absolutely exceptional situations. Emphasising that Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, the Court reiterates that availability of an efficacious civil remedy under CPC operates as a near‑total bar to entertaining Article 227 petitions in such matters, especially in ordinary civil disputes like title suits. Consequently, the Court sets aside the Madras High Court’s order striking off the plaint, restores O.S. No. 93 of 2020 to the trial court’s file, and grants liberty to the defendants to move an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to be decided strictly in accordance with law.
