High Courts Must Not Invoke Article 227 When Section 96 CPC Appeal Remedy Exists: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that when an appeal could have been filed before the high court under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, the high court ought not to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Court emphasised that where a remedy is available under the CPC, the high court must desist from invoking its powers under Article 227.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and S V N Bhatti allowed an appeal filed by S Kalaimamani and others challenging the December 14, 2023 judgment of the Madras High Court.

The high court had allowed a revision petition, set aside a preliminary decree dated August 24, 2022 in the original suit, and granted liberty to the parties to take necessary steps before the trial court to proceed further in the manner known to law.

The appellants' counsel argued that the high court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a preliminary decree passed in a regular civil suit through its supervisory powers under Article 227, especially when an appeal lay under Section 96 CPC before the same court.

Counsel for the respondents admitted that an appeal under Section 96 was indeed available but claimed that the decree was obtained by fraud, and since fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings, a decree that is a nullity could be set aside in any proceeding.

After considering the submissions and examining the record, the bench found that the allegation of fraud raised by the respondents was itself debatable. Therefore, when an appellate remedy under Section 96 existed, the high court should not have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227.

"Our view is fortified by various decisions of this court holding that where a remedy lies under CPC, the High Court must desist from exercising powers under Article 227," the bench observed.

Without going into the merits, the Supreme Court set aside the high court’s order and directed that the parties be relegated to the remedies available under the CPC.

Court was informed that one of the parties, PACE Builders, had already filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC before the high court, but it was returned because of the impugned order. Another party, Ben Foundation, stated that it did not file an appeal earlier due to the pending Article 227 proceedings. Both parties expressed their willingness to present their respective appeals against the preliminary decree.

"In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to observe that if PACE Builders re-presents its appeal within four weeks, the same shall be entertained by the High Court by treating it as not to have been returned. Likewise, Ben Foundation may also present its appeal along with a delay condonation application within four weeks. If so presented, it shall be dealt with in accordance with law," the bench directed.

Case Title: S Kalaimamani & Ors Vs DS S Sudhakaran & Ors

Judgment Date: November 27, 2025

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and S V N Bhatti