Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Globe Theatres Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court for recovery of possession, injunction, and damages against the respondents, claiming they were trespassers. The suit was filed on 31 May 1989, following an earlier suit against defendant No.4 in 1988. The respondents contended that defendant No.4 was a tenant of the appellant, and thus the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. After extensive pleadings and evidence, the trial court framed eleven issues and, on two issues, held that it had no jurisdiction and that defendant No.4 was a beneficiary of the deceased tenant. Consequently, the court returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation to the Small Causes Court. The appellant challenged this order. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 must be based solely on the plaint averments, not on evidence or findings on merits. Since the plaint alleged trespass, the Civil Court had jurisdiction, and the trial court's conclusion on evidence was premature. The High Court set aside the order and directed the City Civil Court to proceed with the suit on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 10 CPC - Jurisdiction - The court may return a plaint only if the plaint itself shows lack of jurisdiction; it cannot decide jurisdiction based on evidence or findings on merits. The court held that the trial court erred in returning the plaint after concluding on evidence that the plaintiffs' trespass claim was false. (Paras 5-6)
B) Landlord and Tenant - Jurisdiction - Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Exclusive Jurisdiction - Suits between landlord and tenant for possession are exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court. However, if the plaintiff's case is based on trespass, the Civil Court has jurisdiction unless the plaint itself reveals a landlord-tenant relationship. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court could return the plaint for presentation to the Small Causes Court after holding, on evidence, that the plaintiffs' case of trespass was false and that the defendant was a tenant.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 4th April 2013 returning the plaint is set aside. The City Civil Court is directed to proceed with the suit on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC must be based on plaint averments
- not evidence
- jurisdiction determined by plaintiff's case
- Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes under Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 59
Appeal from Order (ST) No. 19392 of 2013 with Civil Application (ST) No. 20457 of 2013
Mr. D.S. Parikh, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. P.M. Rustom Khan for Appellant; Mr. K.D. Jha for Respondent
Kopalam M. Mogral, Gafoor Abdulla, Milapchand Shantichand Singhvi, Cyril Carlton Gilbert (Deceased) through LRs Arlene Witten Baker and Andrew Gilbert
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order returning plaint for presentation to Small Causes Court
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the order of return of plaint and direction to proceed with the suit in City Civil Court
Filing Reason
The trial court returned the plaint after holding on evidence that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the defendant was a tenant
Previous Decisions
The City Civil Court returned the plaint on 4th April 2013 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC
Issues
Whether the City Civil Court could return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC after holding on evidence that the plaintiffs' case of trespass was false and that the defendant was a tenant.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the suit was based on trespass and the plaint did not disclose any landlord-tenant relationship, hence the Civil Court had jurisdiction.
Respondents argued that defendant No.4 was a tenant and the suit was between landlord and tenant, barring Civil Court's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, a plaint can be returned only if the plaint itself shows lack of jurisdiction; the court cannot decide jurisdiction based on evidence or findings on merits. The trial court erred in returning the plaint after concluding on evidence that the plaintiffs' trespass claim was false.
Judgment Excerpts
Return of a plaint for presentation to proper Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC though allowed at any stage of the suit may not be when the Court, comes to the conclusion, as it has done in this case, that the plaintiffs' case that the defendants are trespassers is seen to be incorrect.
The Court can proceed under that provision only if the Court finds that the plaintiff's case on the plaint itself shows lack of its jurisdiction, inherent, pecuniary or territorial.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Suit No.5460 of 1988 in Bombay City Civil Court on 8th July 1988 against defendant No.4. Subsequently, on 31st May 1989, they filed a fresh suit against all defendants for trespass. The trial court framed issues, led evidence, and on 4th April 2013 returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 7 Rule 10
- Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882:
