In a partition suit (O.S. No. 195/2009), the trial court passed a preliminary decree on 24.08.2022. Respondents challenged this decree before the Madras High Court by filing a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, alleging fraud on the court, and the High Court on 14.12.2023 allowed the revision, set aside the preliminary decree, and granted liberty to proceed further in the suit.
Appellants approached the Supreme Court contending that since a regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC was available against the preliminary decree, the High Court erroneously exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
The Supreme Court held that the allegation of fraud was debatable and, in the presence of an appellate remedy under the CPC, the High Court should not have entertained the Article 227 petition.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order without examining merits, restored the preliminary decree, and permitted the affected defendants to file or re-file their appeals under Section 96 CPC within four weeks with appropriate directions for condonation and entertainment.
Law Point:
High Courts should not exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with decrees or orders when a statutory remedy of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (such as Section 96 CPC) is available, especially where allegations like fraud are debatable (Paras 3-6).
The principle that alternative remedies under CPC must be availed before invoking Article 227 is reaffirmed, relying on Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538 and Mohd. Ali v. V. Jaya (2022) 10 SCC 477 (Para 5).
Case Title: S. Kalatmamani & Ors. Vs . DS.S. Sudhakaran & Ors.
Order Date: November 27, 2025
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 12251/2025
Name of Court: Supreme Court of India
Name of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
