Shaii
and a brief statemell
the party presenting it,
[Link] the end of sub-rule (1) add
High Court AmendmentS
the following:
the date fixed for the return
eturming
pleader shall be informed of
"The plaintiff or his
plaint." (1-11-1966). oi he
Haveli).-The following amendments were made by
Government Gazette,dated
Nagar
Bombay (Dadra and 15.9-7983, Part 4 Ka, Page 403.
existing sub-rule (1) and its narginal note substitute the
Maharashtra
In Order VI, Rule 10, for
marginal
"10andReturn
as sub-rule ()
the
note:
of plaint.) folowing
Subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, the plaint shal a
any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have
beeninstituted. The plaintiff or his pleadershall be informed of the date fixed for the return
of the plaint.
SYNOPSIS
1. 1976 Amendment
1266| 5. Sub-sec. (2)
... 1266 . 122
6. Limitation .. 1272
2. Scope and Application
Plaint or 7. Appeal . 1272
3. Representation of 1271 8. High Court . 1273
Memo of Appeal 1272 9. Revision ...1273
4. Representation and Court fee
COMMENTS
Amendment.-In sub-rule (1)the italicised and the Explanation have been in.
1. 1976 the court of appeal or revision may, after setting
serted. The Explanation clarifies that
to the proper court.
aside decree, return the plaint for presentation
[Sub-rule (1)substituted in Bombay.]
and Application.-The rule provides for the return of plaint in all cases
2. Scope jurisdiction (territorial, pecuniary or
where a court is unable to entertain it for want of
Khiamal v. Gopal, A1938 S. 124; Ku
other causes) [Madho v. Dharam, A 1940 L 394; 2002 AIHC 3705 (3707) (AP)]. f
Ratnamma,
chi Charumati Devi v. Gampa Chenchu a cause, it is its duty to give
court is itself satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to entertain
v. Northern &c. 1942-1 All ER 465 HLJ.
effect to that on its own initiative [Benson subject-matter
Where the court has no jurisdiction over the of the suit. it has to return the
plaint [Devasthanam v. Gopalaswami, A 1965 SC 338; R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Lid v.
Shree Vallabh Glass Works Lid., AIR 1993 SC 2094, 2097; Ivory Syiem v. Bettymai Sy
LJ 270
em, AIR 2015 Meg 9; Sugandh Sagun v. Central Bank of India. 2005 (3) Mah
(271) (DB) (Bom)], dismissal of suit would be unwarranted. [Sugandh Sagun v. Cenirai
Bank of India, 2005 (3) Mah LJ 270 (271) (DB) (Bom)]. Injunction suit waswasfiled in re
returned
spect of land situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Plaint
for presentation before proper Court [Eden Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Eden Realty Ven
tures Pvt. Lid., AIR 2015 Cal 18 (DB)]. If at any time, it is apparent to the Court on he
averment in the plaint itself that it has no jurisdiction, either pecuniary or territoral.
entertain the matter, the Court can always direct return of the plaint. Insuch acase, thel
7. Ins. by the CPC (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976,s. 57, (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
0. VII, R. 10, Syn. 2 1267
to
necd frame a
nO
js Kumar
Santosh Ghosh, preliminary
AIR 1997 Calissue202,on the question of jurisdiction [Nilima Bose v.
pecuniary
urisdictionof thebut is acase relating to2051. 0f it is not merely a case of territorial
jurisdiction or
barof the sling of civil inherent
court by Section 55C of lack of
jurisdiction as for instance
Nattill Commitep the written the Wakf Act, the court need not
zamiya ID statement by the
GAH, Morar v. M.P. Wakfdefendant to decide that question 47|. [ln-
Court retuns the
that the suit was plaint for presentation Board,
Wherethe Bhopal, AIR 1996 MP
the Court illegal was contrary to lawbefore the proper Court, the order of
AIR2015 Meg91. |lvory Syiem v. Bettymai Syiem,
Although at the stage of
CPC,.whatis to
consideration
be looked into is the of the return of the
plaint and the Order 7 Rule 10
plaint under
0readthe nlaint in a meaningul manner to find out
averments therein, it isbehind
the real intention the suit
also necessary
Sabiha
|Begum Sultan v. Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali
007 SC 1636]. After return of plaint, when plaint isKha, (2007) 4SCC 343 (348) : AIR
etentjurisdiction, it amounts to institution of fresh suit, the latterbefore
presented suit the
wouldCourt
not ofbe com-
con-
sidered continuation of the earlier suit
as
2014) 1SCC6481. (ONGC Ltd. v. Modern Construction &Co.,
In case of inaccurate valuation if it is found
On proper valuation that the suit is beyond
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court the plaint is to be returned [Tata Iron &c v. Arun,
967 P 346] and not to be rejected [Jiwandass v. Anoop
(4947)(Del) : 2000 (88) DLT 85]. Where by Kumar, 2000 AIHC 4946
amendment
auit is increased and the Court ceases to have pecuniary in the [Link] valuatio1 of the
jurisdiction
eould not be said that the suit was wrongly instituted attracting to try the suit, 1t
provisions
MK. Modi v. K.K. Modi, AIR 2005 Delhi 219 (220)1. The Court can at any of 0. 7, R. 10.
Suit return the plaint for being presented before the proper Court having stage of the
t the stage of final hearing of the suit. [Madhai Das V. Tata Engineering, jurisdiction, even
2005
252 (DB) (Cal)]. Plaint can be returned even at the stage of arguments when (3) CHNis
Taised [Brij v. Gopi, A 1938 A 76; see Prabhakar v. Viswambhar, 8 B 313 decided question
under
the old Code and on which the addition at any stage" appears to be based]. The order of
return of plaint after hearing the preliminary issue of jurisdiction is not bad [Dhanpat v.
Prem, A1962 A5721. "The court in which suit should have been instituted'" (ss 15-20).
The court of higher grade does not commit any illegality by not returning the plaint to a
court of lower grade [Ashok v. Omprakas, A 1973 HP 25 (Bhuwaneshwari V.
Raghubansh, A 1954 P 34 rel on)]. The "same plaint" with the cancelled stamp may be
presented to the proper Court [Visweswarav. Nair, 35 M 567 FB; Bhuramalv. Imperial
&c, A1959 Pu 629]; but if when presented again it is changed and it is not substantially
the original plaint, fresh court-fee is leviable [Vasuvattula v. V, A 1950M57]. This rule
applies to Prov S C Courts (Pade Md v. Cheetra, 27 CLJ 590; Abdul Ameeth v. Ponnam
bala, A 1926 M 679). When a suit on negotiable instruments is filed in a court of higher
pecuniary jurisdiction, the court of lower grade being not authorised to try it under sum
mary procedure the court may either entertain and try it or return the plaint for being tried
by the court of lower grade in the ordinary way (J KSharma v. Ramachandra, A 1965
My 2481.
If a court holds that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, the proper course is
Only to return the plaint for presentation to proper court and not to dismiss it [Vijay Ku
mar Sachdev v. Baldey Rai Bhutani, AIR 1992 Del 233, 234]. R 10 does not apply when
acourt receiving a suit by transfer from District Judge finds that it has no jurisdiction. It
Should be returned to the court from whose file it came [Kedar v. Sheonarain, A 1952 P
o0]. Where no monetary gain or loss in claimed in suit, suit cannot be said to susceptible
any monetary evaluation, return of plaint on ground of beyond pecuniary jurisdiction
of Court would be improper. (Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn, Gandhinagar v.
Shiyania, 2003 AIHC 486(488) (Guj)). Where the Court finds that the suit is not main
anable, the question of returning the plaint for presentation betore the proper Court
