The Madras High Court invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a civil suit filed by a plaintiff who concealed a chain of prior adjudications culminating in a Supreme Court order directing eviction of the original tenant. The Court held that where a suit constitutes an abuse of process and re-litigation of settled issues, the High Court must intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice even when alternative remedies exist.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Lourde Marie Dhambarane and Annibal Nehru, are the legal heirs and successors of Dambrun Paulin, who originally owned the suit property in Puducherry. The respondent, S. Santhi, filed O.S. No. 756 of 2020 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, claiming ownership through a sale deed dated 27 January 2012.
Key Facts
- 1982: Dambrun Paulin filed ejectment suit O.S. No. 945 of 1982 against tenant Rolando Joseph in the First Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry.
- 11 November 1983: Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Dambrun Paulin.
- 22 December 1987: First Additional District Court, Puducherry, reversed the decree in A.S. No. 25 of 1984.
- 18 August 2000: Madras High Court in S.A. No. 1441 of 1988 set aside the appellate decree and restored the Trial Court's judgment and decree.
- 23 November 2005: Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5384 of 2001 confirmed the High Court judgment and granted the tenant time until 31 August 2006 to vacate and hand over possession.
- 10 August 2001: Despite the pending litigation, tenant Rolando Joseph and his wife executed a registered settlement deed in favour of their son, Rolando Kichor Alibar Ashokan.
- Subsequent transactions: The son executed two registered sale deeds - one in favour of the respondent S. Santhi and another in favour of Nithiyadevi.
- 11 December 2015: District Registrar, Puducherry, cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent on an application by the legal heirs of Dambrun Paulin.
- 11 February 2014: Tahsildar, Puducherry, in a land-grabbing petition, found the documents in favour of the respondent and her vendor to be acts of fraud and a fit case for criminal action.
- 5 January 2016: W.P. No. 5723 of 2014 filed by the respondent challenging the Tahsildar's order was dismissed by the High Court.
- 21 April 2023: W.P. No. 12168 of 2014 filed by Nithiyadevi challenging the same Tahsildar order was dismissed; the Court held she had no title, was in illegal occupation, had indulged in land grabbing, and directed her eviction within one month with police assistance.
Procedural History
- 2020: Respondent filed O.S. No. 756 of 2020 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry, seeking permanent injunction.
- 2022: Petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1196 of 2022 under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Madras High Court seeking to strike off the plaint.
- 27 October 2026: Arguments reserved.
- 29 October 2026: Judgment delivered allowing the revision petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought striking off the plaint in O.S. No. 756 of 2020 on the ground that the suit was an abuse of process of court, filed by concealing material facts and prior adjudications up to the Supreme Court.
The Legal Issue
Whether the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off a plaint when an alternative remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is available, where the suit constitutes an abuse of process and re-litigation of issues already adjudicated upon by competent courts up to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Learned Senior Counsel T.R. Rajagopalan submitted that the respondent had concealed the entire history of litigation, including the Supreme Court order of 23 November 2005 directing eviction of the tenant by 31 August 2006. The settlement deed and subsequent sale deeds were executed in fraud of the court's orders. The District Registrar had already cancelled the respondent's sale deed. The Tahsildar had found fraud. Two writ petitions challenging these findings had been dismissed. The present suit was a clear abuse of process and re-litigation, which are not grounds available under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, Article 227 jurisdiction must be invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice.
For the Respondent
Learned Counsel G. Thangavel relied on P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani (2026 (7) SCC 644) and contended that the High Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 227 to strike off a plaint. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is exceptional and cannot be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the CPC, specifically Order VII Rule 11.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Supreme Court's decision in P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani in detail. The relevant paragraphs (37-40) establish that Article 227 powers are supervisory, not appellate, and should be exercised only when non-exercise results in miscarriage of justice or deprivation of remedy. The availability of an alternative remedy under the CPC legitimately displaces the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under both Article 226 and Article 227. The High Court must not engulf specific statutory remedies and become a supervisor over the court below.
However, the Court found the present case to be a "text book case" falling within the exceptional category. The original tenant, despite giving an undertaking to the Supreme Court to vacate by 31 August 2006, executed a settlement deed in 2001 in favour of his son, who then created sale deeds in favour of the respondent and Nithiyadevi. The High Court had already dealt with the identical facts in W.P. No. 12168 of 2014 (Nithiyadevi's case) and held that the subsequent purchaser had no right, was in illegal occupation, and was liable to immediate eviction.
The Court observed that the respondent had concealed all earlier proceedings and orders, indulged in abuse of process, and used the court to perpetuate illegality. The acts of the original tenant and his son amounted to contumacious conduct and contempt of court. The owner had been made to run from pillar to post since 1982 despite succeeding up to the Supreme Court in 2005.
Critically, the Court held that abuse of process and re-litigation are not grounds that can be raised under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, the alternative remedy under the CPC was not efficacious for this grievance. This made the case a fit one for necessary exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction to prevent further miscarriage of justice.
The Court also rejected the respondent's claim that the suit property was different, noting that her title derived from the same settlement deed and sale deeds that were the subject of prior proceedings.
"In the case in hand, the present suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is a clear abuse of process of court and a re-litigation, which are not grounds that can be raised under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. This is a fit case where this Court has to necessarily exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to prevent further miscarriage of justice and the supervisory jurisdiction has to be necessarily exercised in the present case."
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court allowed Civil Revision Petition No. 1196 of 2022 and struck off the suit in O.S. No. 756 of 2020 from the register of the Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry. No costs were awarded. The connected CMP Nos. 6364 of 2022 and 6188 of 2023 were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Article 227 Remains Available for Abuse of Process
The judgment reaffirms that Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is not ousted merely because Order VII Rule 11 CPC exists. Where the grievance is abuse of process, re-litigation, or fraud on the court - grounds not covered by Order VII Rule 11 - the High Court must intervene. Practitioners should frame revision petitions under Article 227 specifically on these grounds when a plaintiff conceals prior adjudications and attempts to re-litigate settled issues.
Concealment of Prior Judgments Is Fatal
- A plaintiff who conceals a chain of judgments up to the Supreme Court and files a fresh suit on the same cause of action invites striking off of the plaint under Article 227.
- Courts will examine the entire litigation history, including orders from revenue authorities (Tahsildar, District Registrar) and writ petitions, to determine if the suit is an abuse of process.
Contumacious Conduct Strengthens the Case for Article 227
- Where a party violates undertakings given to the Supreme Court and creates derivative titles to circumvent eviction orders, the High Court will treat this as contumacious conduct tantamount to contempt.
- The "text book case" language signals that such fact patterns warrant mandatory exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
Practical Takeaways for Lawyers
- In revision petitions under Article 227, compile a complete chronological chart of all prior proceedings, judgments, and orders.
- Specifically plead that the grievance (abuse of process, re-litigation, fraud on court) falls outside Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
- Cite P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani to acknowledge the general rule, then distinguish on the ground that the alternative remedy is not efficacious for the specific grievance.
- Seek striking off of the plaint rather than dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 when the defect is not apparent on the face of the plaint but emerges from extrinsic evidence of prior adjudications.
