CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtFull Bench

Auto Engineering Works vs Bansal Trading Company and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 10 December 1999 · Citation: (1999) 10 JT 361 : (2000) 91 RD 294 : (2001) 10 SCC 630

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. S. Anand, C.J · S. Rajendra Babu, J · N. Santosh Hedge, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 10
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 7141 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11978 of 1998)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 416 words

S. Rajendra Babu, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties on I.A. Nos.1 and 2. Delay in filing the application (I.A.No.2) to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm is condoned. Learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the legal representatives being brought on record. The application (I.A.No.1) is accordingly, allowed. The Index shall be corrected.

2.

Leave granted.

3.

The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura (Agartala). It was a money suit. The trial court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The trial court, however, declined to exercise power under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC and did not return the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum. The appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court failed on 28th November, 1997. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

4.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial court fell in error in not directing the return of the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum and the High Court also likewise fell in the same error. The terms of Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC are clear and specific. After having found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, the trial court ought to have returned the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum. We, therefore, set aside the order of the trial court to the extent it refused to return the plaint to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum and direct that the plaint shall be returned to the appellant for its presentation to the proper forum. After the plaint is so presented to the court having jurisdiction, the case shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law on its own merits.

5.

We record the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaint shall be presented to the District Court at Alipore, West Bengal and direct the parties to appear before the said District Court on 28th January, 2000.

6.

The trial court shall proceed with the trial of the suit uninfluenced by any observations made by the trial court or the High Court. We express no opinion on the merits of the case.

7.

The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.