The Karnataka High Court through Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that only the plaintiff, not the defendant, can file an application under Order 7 Rule 10 (Return of plaint) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in a suit.
The respondents initiated a suit in front of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, seeking the recovery of certain amounts of money. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is the defendant therein, submitted an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the return of the plaint on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner argued that since the transaction occurred within the jurisdiction of the City of Bengaluru, only the court in Bengaluru has the appropriate jurisdiction. However, this application was rejected through an order dated October 3, 2023. The petitioner now challenged that decision before this Court.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court failed to recognize that the entire transaction, including the work order and supply of software, took place in Bengaluru. Additionally, the petitioner’s head office is situated in Bengaluru. The petitioner being the defendant, it was for the respondents, as per Section 20 of the CPC, to file the suit in the jurisdiction where the defendant resides or conducts business. Therefore, such a plaint should have been returned to the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.
The court was of the opinion that in this instance, the defendant has submitted an application for the return of the plaint, which is not permissible to do. Instead, the defendant has the right to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction as a defence, which the Court must consider based on relevant laws, including Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This consideration can occur either during the trial or as a preliminary issue, as allowed under Sub-Rule(2) of Order 14 of the CPC.
In light of that perspective, albeit not for the same rationale provided by the trial Court, it should be noted that an application under Rule 10 of Order VII of the CPC can be maintained only by the plaintiff and cannot be initiated by the defendant. And as the petition failed to present any valid grounds, it was dismissed.
The petitioner is granted the freedom to request the issue concerning territorial jurisdiction to be treated as a preliminary matter, provided such an issue has already been framed and if not, then may request for such an issue to be framed accordingly.
CASE NAME: Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust Vs Rashmi Khatawkar & Anr
Name: Riddhi Gupta, Course: BALLB, College: Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies, Intern Under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments