Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Sekar Poultry Feeds (an unregistered firm represented by its proprietor Chettiarhan Kandaramy), was the defendant in Commercial O.S. No. 780/2022 filed by the respondent, Annapurna Organics Pvt. Ltd., before the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The respondent-plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 9,55,912/- for supply of SOYA DOC, alleging default in payment. The petitioner-defendant filed I.A. No. 9 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the defendant resided in Salem, Tamil Nadu, and the plaint did not disclose where the cause of action arose. The trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the defendant filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the plaint and found that it did not reveal where the transaction took place or where payment was required to be made. Relying on Section 20 CPC, which provides that a suit may be instituted where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises, the Court held that since the plaint failed to disclose the place of cause of action, the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Return of Plaint - Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 20 CPC - The defendant filed an application for return of plaint contending that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the defendant resided in Salem and the plaint did not disclose where the cause of action arose. The trial court dismissed the application. The High Court held that a bare reading of the plaint did not reveal where the cause of action arose, and therefore the trial court ought to have returned the plaint for presentation before the proper court. The impugned order was set aside and the plaint was directed to be returned. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, when the plaint did not disclose where the cause of action arose.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed on I.A. No. 9 in Commercial O.S. No. 780/2022 by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. The trial court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Cause of action
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 20 CPC
- Return of plaint
