Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Amit Agrawal And Others Pending on 27 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5497
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS/1845/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Vishwast Kandpal, Advocate for the
petitioner.
2. Petitioner is defendant in Original Suit
No. 136 of 2025, filed by respondent Nos. 1 &
2 for cancellation of sale deed in which relief
of permanent injunction is also sought.
3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:
"Set-aside the entire proceedings of Original
Suit No. 136 of 2025, titled as M/s S.R. traders and
another Versus Amit Agrawal and others pending
before learned court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Haridwar (plaint of aforementioned case is contained
as Annexure No. 14) and reject the plaint filed by the
respondent no. 1 in view of the judgment and order
dated 01.11.2004 passed by Hon'ble High Court of
Uttarakhand in WPMS No. 449 of 2004, Ashutosh
Sharma and another Versus Sub Divisional
Magistrate."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that since a coordinate Bench passed
an order on 01.11.2004 in WPMS No. 449 of
2004, whereby liberty was granted to M/s S.R.
Traders (respondent no. 2) and some other
persons to file suit for declaration of their title
over the land in question, therefore plaint of
the suit filed by M/s S.R. Traders (Respondent
no. 1) is liable to be rejected on this ground
2025:UHC:5497
alone.
5. Relief as claimed by petitioner cannot be
granted in a petition under Article 227 of
Constitution.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent
judgment rendered in the case of K. Valamathi
and others Vs. Kumaresan, reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 985 examined the question
whether High Court in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution
can reject a plaint ? Paras 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15
of the said judgment are extracted below:-
"8. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is
supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals
under its supervision act within the limits of their
jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly
exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of
record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal
assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to
exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its
jurisdiction in a perverse manner.
9. Essence of the power under Article 227 being
supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original
jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can
it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of
appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a
near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227.
10. Civil Procedure Code is a self-contained Code and
Order VII Rule 11 therein enumerates the circumstances in
which the trial court may reject a plaint. Such rejection
amounts to a deemed decree which is appealable before the
High Court under Section 96 of the Code. This statutory
scheme cannot be upended by invoking supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain
a prayer for rejection of plaint.
11. In the present case, High Court has supervened the
provisions of the Code when it rejected the plaint on the
ground it was barred by law. In doing so, the High Court not
only substituted itself as the court of first instance but also
rendered nugatory a valuable right to appeal available to the
2025:UHC:5497
appellant had the issue been adjudicated by the trial court in
the first place.
14. Procedural law provides the necessary legal
infrastructure on which edifice of rule of law is built. Short-
circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an
undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such
impulses rendering procedural safeguards and substantive
rights otiose, subvert certainty and consistency in law and
need to be discouraged.
15. Similar issue fell for decision in Jacky v. Tiny @
Antony when a tenant (non-party to the suit) prayed for
rejection of an alleged collusive suit between the legal heirs
of his erstwhile landlord and the new purchaser under
Article 226/227. Deprecating invocation of constitutional
powers in a landlord-tenant dispute, the Court observed:--
"15. ...If a suit is not maintainable it was well within
the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the same in
appropriate proceedings but in no case power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be
exercised to question a plaint."
7. In view of the legal position as discussed
in the aforesaid judgment, this Court do not
find any reason to entertain this writ petition.
The same is accordingly dismissed.
8. Petitioner shall be at liberty to move
appropriate application before learned Trial
Court.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
27.06.2025
Mahinder/
