Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akshay Quenim, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, 'B' Court at Merces in Special Civil Suit No.40/2024/B. The impugned order directed that the application for amendment of the plaint (Exhibit D-13) be heard and decided prior to the application for return of the plaint (Exhibit D-9) filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The respondent, Royce Savio Pereira, had filed the suit seeking compensation for defamation, a public apology, and return of a cheque, among other reliefs. The defendant filed an application for return of the plaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, and the defendant resided there. The plaintiff then filed an amendment application to add a prayer for declaration of jurisdiction. The Trial Court ordered that the amendment application be decided first. The High Court held that the application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC must be decided first because it raises a jurisdictional issue that goes to the root of the matter. If the court lacks inherent jurisdiction, no amendment can confer jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to decide the application for return of plaint first, and only if it is rejected, then consider the amendment application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 10 CPC - Amendment of Plaint - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The Trial Court erred in ordering that the amendment application be heard and decided prior to the application for return of plaint. The High Court held that the application for return of plaint, which raises a jurisdictional issue, must be decided first as it goes to the root of the matter. If the court lacks inherent jurisdiction, no amendment can confer jurisdiction. (Paras 5-10) B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction - Amendment Cannot Confer Jurisdiction - Where the plaint discloses that the court lacks inherent jurisdiction over the subject matter, an amendment cannot cure such defect. The application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC must be decided before any amendment is considered. (Paras 8-10) C) Civil Procedure - Procedure for Preliminary Objections - The proper procedure is to first decide the application for return of plaint. If the plaint is returned, the amendment application becomes infructuous. If the plaint is not returned, the amendment application can be considered on its merits. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court could defer the decision on an application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and first decide an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2025, and directed the Trial Court to first decide the application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Only if that application is rejected, the Trial Court may consider the amendment application.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 10 CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- Return of plaint for want of jurisdiction
- Amendment of plaint
- Procedure for deciding preliminary objections
- Inherent lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by amendment
