SC held that the HC's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under...

SC held that the HC's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was improper. The power is fundamentally supervisory and must be sparingly invoked only in cases of apparent jurisdictional errors or grave injustice. By rejecting the plaint prematurely, the HC effectively usurped the trial court's original jurisdiction and negated the appellant's statutory right of appeal. The court emphasized that procedural safeguards are critical to the rule of law, and short-circuiting established legal procedures undermines judicial consistency. The HC's order was set aside, restoring the standard adjudicatory process and preserving procedural integrity.

---