R. Srinivasan v. Southern and Rajamani TPT Pvt. Ltd. - Art. 227 Constitution - CPC - Rejection Of Plaint
Constitution of India Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - In this case, High Court allowed the petition filed by certain defendants in a suit and struck off the plaint in respect of those defendants - Allowing appeal, SC held: The High Court cannot entertain the petitions of this nature for rejecting the plaint- Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy. (Para 2-6)
Case Info
Case name: R. Srinivasan v. M/s. Southern and Rajamani TPT Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Neutral citation: Not mentioned in the order (only appeal number and date are given).Court / Coram: Supreme Court of India – Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.Judgment date: 28 January 2026.Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 8009 of 2016.
Case laws and citations referred
- K. Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan, 2025 INSC 606.
- A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 695.
Statutes / laws referred
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India – power of superintendence of High Courts.
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – rejection of plaint.
Brief Summary : The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in 2010 based on an agreement for sale dated 20.09.2000; certain defendants invoked Article 227 before the High Court seeking rejection of the plaint, and the High Court effectively struck off the plaint as against them. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not entertain such a petition under Article 227 as if it were an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, relying on the principles in K. Valarmathi and A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu that constitutional jurisdiction should not be used to short-circuit procedural remedies. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, restored O.S. No. 3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai, directed its expeditious disposal, and clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits.