Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from a civil suit in which the defendants challenged the maintainability of a re-presented plaint on procedural grounds. The original suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund, as O.S. No. 158/94. That court returned the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. After making amendments to the plaint, the plaintiffs re-presented it in the Civil Court at Dharwad, where it was numbered as O.S. No. 10/91. The defendants then filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking dismissal of the plaint, contending that the plaint had been materially altered without obtaining permission for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the defendants' application in C.R.P. No. 1650/96, leading to the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Arguments: The petitioners' counsel argued that because the plaint contained amended averments not present in the original plaint, it must be treated as a fresh plaint and not as a re-presentation after return. Therefore, the failure to seek amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was fatal. The Court found no force in this contention. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court explained that the object of Order VII Rule 10-A is to enable the plaintiff, upon return of the plaint, either to challenge the return in an appellate forum or to re-present the plaint to the court having territorial jurisdiction. When the plaint is re-presented, it is in substance a suit filed afresh, subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction, and payment of court fee. It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; the re-presented plaint can at best be treated as a fresh plaint and proceeded with according to law. Decision: The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error of law in dismissing the defendants' application. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return and Re-presentation of Plaint - Order VII Rules 10 & 10-A, Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - When a plaint is returned for want of territorial jurisdiction and re-presented in the proper court with amended averments, it is in substance a fresh suit subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee; formal permission under Order VI Rule 17 is not always necessary; such plaint cannot be dismissed merely because new averments were added. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the defendants' application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, holding that the object of Order VII Rule 10-A permits representation without appellate challenge and that no error of law was committed. Held that no formal amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is required for re-presentation of a returned plaint with additional averments. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a plaint returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction and re-presented with amended averments without permission under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, holding that no error of law was committed. The re-presented plaint was to be treated as a fresh plaint and could be proceeded with according to law.
Law Points
- Returned plaint re-presented in proper court is a fresh suit subject to limitation
- pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee
- No formal amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC required for additional averments
- Object of Order VII Rule 10-A is to allow either appellate challenge or representation
- Plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 10 for amended averments
Case Details
1997 LawText (SC) (02) 92
K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
S.K. Kulkarni, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar
Chandrashekharappa & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit involving procedural challenge to a re-presented plaint after return for lack of territorial jurisdiction
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (defendants in the suit) sought dismissal of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground that the plaint had been materially altered without permission under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Filing Reason
The respondents (plaintiffs) originally filed O.S. No. 158/94 in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund, which was returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction. After amendment, they re-presented it in Civil Court at Dharwad as O.S. No. 10/91. The petitioners contended that the plaint was materially altered and should be dismissed.
Previous Decisions
The High Court of Karnataka in C.R.P. No. 1650/96 dismissed the petitioners' application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, holding that the re-presented plaint was in substance a fresh suit subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee, and no formal amendment under Order VI Rule 17 was necessary.
Issues
Whether a plaint returned for want of territorial jurisdiction and re-presented with amended averments without formal permission under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners' counsel contended that the plaint with amended averments must be treated as a fresh plaint, not one after representation to the proper court, and therefore the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 was required.
The Court found no force in the contention, reasoning that the object of Order VII Rule 10-A allows the plaintiff either to challenge the return in appeal or to re-present to the proper court; re-presentation amounts to a fresh suit subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and court fee, and no formal amendment under Order VI Rule 17 is always necessary.
Ratio Decidendi
When a plaint is returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction and re-presented in the proper court with amended averments, it is in substance a fresh suit subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court fee. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before adding such averments, and the plaint cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on that ground. The object of Order VII Rule 10-A is to enable the plaintiff either to challenge the return or to re-present before the court having territorial jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The object of Order VII, Rule 10-A is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum or represent to the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
In substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the High Court.
It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law.
Procedural History
The respondents filed O.S. No. 158/94 before the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. The plaint was returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction. After amendment, the respondents re-presented the suit as O.S. No. 10/91 in Civil Court at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for dismissal, contending that the plaint was materially altered without permission under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition in C.R.P. No. 1650/96 on July 9, 1996. The petitioners then filed the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on February 3, 1997.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 10, Order VII Rule 10-A, Order VI Rule 17
