Madras High Court· 19 August 2026
Is the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India circumscribed by the doctrine of laches?
Chinnammal (Died), Dharmaraj v. S.Eswari
CRP(MD).1821/2026 · 2026:MHC:3412 · C.R.P.(MD)No.1821 of 2026
Coram: Justice S.Sounthar
Answer
Yes. Being a constitutional remedy there is no time limit for invoking Article 227 and this Court can even suo motu exercise the power, but a person seeking exercise of supervisory power must approach the Court within reasonable time and a person approaching with long delay must explain the reasons for laches; where the laches has not been explained the Court can very well refuse to exercise its supervisory power. The existence of an alternative remedy before the regular civil Court, such as Order 9 Rule 13, an appeal under Section 96 or a review under Section 114, is a near total bar.
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 20 Rule 4(2) — Order 9 Rule 13 — s.96 — s.114 — Constitution of India — Article 227 — Ex parte decree — Reasons in the judgment — Supervisory jurisdiction — Laches — Alternative remedy —
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 20 Rule 4(2) — Ex parte judgment — Procedural law mandates reasons —
Held: Even where the defendant is set ex parte, the judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision, and must reflect application of mind by the trial Court. (¶9, 24)
Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory power — Circumscribed by the doctrine of laches —
Held further: There is no time limit for invoking the supervisory power under Article 227, but a person approaching with long delay must explain the reasons for laches, and where it is not explained the Court can refuse to exercise the power. (¶11)
Constitution of India — Article 227 — Alternative remedy — Near total bar on supervisory jurisdiction —
Held further: The existence of an alternative remedy before the regular civil Court is a near total bar to supervisory jurisdiction, and a party who availed Order 9 Rule 13 and allowed that dismissal to attain finality cannot invoke it. (¶14)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Revisional jurisdiction — Purely discretionary — Court may refuse to interfere despite error —
Held further: The revisional power being purely discretionary, the Court may refuse to interfere even with an erroneous order where interference will result in injustice to the decree holder. Revision dismissed on the ground of laches. (¶15, 22, 25)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 11As far as supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, being a constitutional remedy, there is no time limit for invoking the same. Even without formal petition, this Court can suo motu exercise the power. Even if there is no limitation for invoking the revisional power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a person seeking exercise of supervisory power must approach this Court within reasonable time. A person approaching the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 05:12:59 pm ) Court with long delay must explain the reasons for laches. In case, the laches on the part of the petitioners has not been explained, this Court can very well refuse to exercise it's supervisory power. Hence, power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by doctrine of laches.
Paragraph 14In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors. reported in 2019 INSC 1117, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when alternative remedy is available before the regular civil Court, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court shall not be normally exercised and an existence of alternative remedy before the regular civil Court is near total bar for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. A person aggrieved by the ex parte decree has got the remedy of filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte decree or he can file an appeal challenging the ex parte decree under Section 96 of C.P.C., or he can file a review application under Section 114 of C.P.C. In case, ex parte decree was obtained by fraud, he can even challenge the same by way of separate suit. Therefore, multiple remedies are available to the person aggrieved by the ex parte decree before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 05:12:59 pm ) the regular civil Court under C.P.C. In fact one of such remedy was already availed by the petitioners by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., along with condone delay petition and that the said proceedings ended against the petitioners. The order passed by the trial Court dismissing the condone delay petition was not challenged and the same had attained finality. The other remedies like filing an appeal or review application have not been availed by the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that ex parte decree was obtained by fraud. Therefore, there is no scope for filing a separate suit. Having availed the alternate remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., the petitioners are not entitled to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Virudhunagar's case cited supra. Further as explained earlier, there is enormous delay on the part of the petitioners in challenging the ex parte decree by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and the same has not been satisfactorily explained. Hence, the revision filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 05:12:59 pm )
Acts & Sections
Order 20 Rule 4(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.2(9) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 8 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Article 227 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Chinnammal (Died), Dharmaraj v. S.Eswari — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →