Do High Courts have Power to Summarily Dismiss Claims Filed before Trial Courts?
Almost every client facing a claim in court wishes that the claim against them be dismissed early. They often ask if a petition can be filed before the high court to get the claim filed before the trial court dismissed? While the question seems straightforward, the answer was not, until now. Some high courts had entertained petitions and rejected claims pending before the trial courts. Other high courts had refused to do so primarily on the ground that there is an alternate statutory remedy available. Recently, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in K. Valarmathi & Others v. Kumaresan (“Valarmathi”),1 took note of such inconsistency in the approach adopted by the high courts and has settled the issue. In this note, we discuss the decision of the Supreme Court in Valarmathi with contextual background.
POWER OF THE TRIAL COURTS UNDER THE CPC TO SUMMARILY REJECT CLAIMS
As a start, it is useful to understand the power of a trial court to reject claims at an early stage. Such power of trial court is codified under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”). The provisions of the CPC most commonly relied on to seek dismissal of a suit can be found in Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which grants a trial court the power to reject a claim filed before it on certain specific grounds as set out below:
1. if the claim filed does not disclose a cause of action;
2. if the relief claimed is undervalued and such valuation is not corrected despite an opportunity granted by the trial court;
3. if the court fee is insufficiently paid and continues to be insufficiently paid despite an opportunity granted by the trial court;
4. if the claim is barred under any law;
5. if the claim is not filed in duplicate; or,
6. if the provisions in relation to service of the claim and summons on the opposite party have not been complied.
If the trial court finds that any of the aforesaid grounds are met, the trial court is obliged to reject the claim with or without the requirement of any application for such rejection.2
REVISIONAL POWER OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER THE CPC
Under Section 115 of the CPC, high courts are granted the power to call for the records and proceedings of any case ongoing before a court subordinate to such high court and to issue such orders as the high courts may deem fit and proper in three specific instances set out below:
1. if the lower court has proceeded with adjudicating a matter without jurisdiction;
2. if the lower court has declined to adjudicate a matter even when it had the jurisdiction to so; and,
3. if the lower court has exercised jurisdiction in a manner that is illegal or materially irregular.
Notably, Section 115 of the CPC makes it clear that the high courts will exercise power under Section 115 only when:
1. there is no provision of appeal against the decision of the lower court being complained of in the revision application; and,
2. the order of the lower court, if it had been issued in favor of the party applying for revision, would have finally decided the claim or other proceedings.
The revisional power of the high courts under Section 115 of the CPC has been whittled over the years through amendments and is now confined to issues of jurisdictional errors of subordinate courts.
SUPERINTENDENCE POWER OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (the “Constitution”), high courts are granted the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals situated within their respective territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, except for those relating to the armed forces. The power of the high courts under Article 227 is administrative as well as judicial. Such power is wide, discretionary and equitable. In fact, it is Article 227 which casts a duty on the high courts to ensure that courts and tribunals within in territories discharge their duties in a legal manner.
The power of the high courts under Article 227 is distinct from the power of the high courts under Section 115 of the CPC. The limited scope of the high court’s revisional jurisdiction in relation to matters pending before a trial court does not curtail the scope of the high court’s power or jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In Valarmathi, the Supreme Court examines the exercise of the power by the high courts under Article 227 in connection with proceedings before a trial court.
INCONSISTENT APPROACH OF THE HIGH COURTS
High courts had been inconsistent in their approach in dealing with applications filed for summary dismissal of claims. For instance, in Baskar and Others v. P. Annadurai,3 the Madras High Court allowed an application under Article 227 and dismissed the suit pending before the trial court on the ground that it constituted an ‘abuse of the process of court’. Similarly, in Surinder Mohan v. Pritam Kaur,4 the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while noting that the parties had approached the High Court under Article 227 despite there being an alternative remedy under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, allowed the application under Article 227. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the suits filed before the trial court on the grounds of such suits being vexatious. Likewise, in S. Pandari v. Doosa Venkaiah,5 the Telangana High Court allowed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 and dismissed a suit pending in the trial court on the basis of the grounds available in Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the CPC.
In contrast to the above, there have been instances where the high courts have refrained from entertaining petitions under Article 227 for rejecting claims pending before trial courts. In Shriram Educational and Charitable Trust v. Alok Swaroop and Others,6 the Allahabad High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 and directed the parties to approach the trial court under applicable provisions of the CPC for rejection of the suit. Likewise, in Anadurai v. Santhankrishnan and Ors.,7 the Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed under Article 227 and granted the parties liberty to file appropriate application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC before the trial court.
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN VALARMATHI
In Valarmathi, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed seeking rejection of the plaints pending in the trial court on the ground that the suit was barred by law. Taking note of the inconsistent approach followed by various high courts, the Supreme Court held that high courts cannot dismiss suits pending before trial courts by exercising powers under Article 227. The Supreme Court observed:
1. that the essence of the power under Article 227 is supervisory and it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of trial courts.
2. that the powers of a high courts under Article 227 cannot be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the CPC.
3. that the power of a high courts under Article 227 is to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction. Such 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 they do not possess, or failing to exercise jurisdiction which they do have, or exercising jurisdiction in a perverse manner.
1. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985.
2. Patil Automation Private Limited and Others v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1.
3. (2021) 1 LW 267.
4. PLR (2009) 154 P&H 638.
5. 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1985.
6. (2019) 137 ALR 390.
7. C.R.P(MD) No.2635 of 2023 in the Madras High Court at Madurai.