Hanuman Prasad Sharma @ H.P. Sharma vs J. Mithyleshwar

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.07.2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 10 CPC came to be allowed.

The  facts in  a nutshell  are  that the appellant preferred the underlying civil suit for recovery of Rs.10 lacs along with interest, claiming that he had provided a friendly loan of Rs.10 lacs to the respondent. It was averred that the  said  sum  was  transferred  from  the  appellant’s account  maintained  with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Savita Vihar Branch, Delhi. The appellant had further claimed that towards discharge of its liability to pay the said amount, the respondent  had  issued  cheque  no.  000072  dated  03.03.2016  for  Rs.10  lacs drawn  on  HDFC  Bank, Bellari  Branch, Karnataka. The  said  cheque,  when presented  by  the  appellant  at  his  bank  in  Delhi,  got  dishonoured.  Claiming jurisdiction at Delhi, the appellant had sought recovery of the aforesaid amount.

While contesting the impugned order, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Trial Court erred in allowing the respondent’s application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC without appreciating that the respondent had not taken any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court in the written statement; as such, no issue was framed on the  said  aspect.  The  application  under  Order  VII  Rule  10  CPC  came  to  be filed subsequently, and moreover, while there were a total of four suits filed by the appellant with respect to four different loan transactions, in the remaining suits where the loan was extended through cash/RTGS, similar applications under  Order  VII  Rule  10  CPC  came  to  dismissed; however,  in the present case, for no good reason, such an application was allowed. Learned counsel has further referred to Section 21 CPC to claim jurisdiction at Delhi.

Learned counsel for the respondent, while contesting the above submissions,  contended  that  the  respondent  is  located  in  Karnataka  and  no cause  of  action  had  arisen  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court.  As  per  the averments, the loan amount was received by the respondent in his bank account in Karnataka. The promissory note and the receipt were also executed at Ballari and thus, merely because the appellant is located in Delhi, without any part of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court, it does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Courts at Delhi.

The plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the suit was raised by the respondent vide his application under Order  VII  Rule  10  CPC.  The  underlying  suit  was  filed  on 12.02.2019,  the written statement came to be filed on 02.05.2019, and the issues were settled on 18.02.2021. Concededly, in the written statement, the respondent had not raised  any  objection  to  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of the  Courts  at  Delhi.  In the suit, the appellant/plaintiff had claimed jurisdiction in paragraph 15, which is reproduced hereunder:-

“15.  That  Delhi  courts  has  jurisdiction  to  try  and  adjudicate  the  present case as the defendant contacted the plaintiff and his family in Delhi, at C- 185, East Gokalpur, Wazirabad Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi where the request was acceded to and Promissory note along with receipt were delivered by  the defendant and for repayment of the amount the cheque was handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff at the same address and this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present  suit  as  the  plaintiff  provided  money  to  the  defendant  through  his bank account maintained at Karnataka Bank  Ltd., Savita Vihar, Delhi - 110092 by way of RTGS, the cheque given by the defendant was also presented  for  encashment  in  the  same  bank  account  which  was  returned unpaid and dishonoured with the remarks ‘Account Blocked’ which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.”

Pertinently, in the written statement filed by the respondent, it was stated that the same is a matter of record and needs no reply, and no objection to the territorial jurisdiction was raised. As such, no issue was framed by the Trial Court on the aforesaid aspect. The law pertaining to the institution of a suit within the jurisdiction of a particular Court where part of the cause of  action  has  arisen is  well settled. It is  also  well settled  that  for considering  an  application  under  Order  VII  Rule  10  CPC,  the  Court  has  to confine itself to the pleadings made in the plaint. A perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiff has claimed that  the respondent had contacted the  appellant  at  Delhi,  where  his  request  was  accepted  and the  promissory note, as well as the receipt, were delivered for the payment of the loan amount. It is further claimed that the dishonour of the repayment cheque occurred  at  Delhi. No  doubt,  the  application under  Order  VII Rule  10  CPC empowers and enables a Court to return the plaint“atany stage of suit” to be presented  to  the  Court  in  which  the  suit  ought  to  have  been  instituted.  The words“atany  stage  of  the  suit”  would  mean  even  after  the  trial  has  begun and concluded, but before the judgment is delivered. Neither consent nor waiver can cure the  defect of  inherent lack of jurisdiction,  and consent of parties cannot operate to confer jurisdiction on a Court which has no competence to try it; whereas territorial jurisdiction can always be assumed by the Court when such an objection is waived by the party on the principles laid down in Section 21 CPC. Independently of Section 21 CPC, a defendant may also waive the objection as regards a defect in territorial jurisdiction and will be subsequently precluded from taking the objection  (Ref: Bank of India Vs. U.A.N. Raju & Anr. MANU/AP/0895/2003). In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 7 SCC 791, the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“30. We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court  may be  classified  into  several  categories.  The  important  categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary  jurisdictions  are  concerned,  objection  to  such  jurisdiction  has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity.”

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar Ojha Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/2921/2025, while seized of a similar issue, concluded that the defendant, having not taken any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court earlier and no issue on the said aspect having been settled, was precluded from taking the said objection subsequently.

To the same effect is the decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Sunder Kalra Vs. Ravinder Kumar Jain & Anr. 2012:DHC:6477,  wherein this Court held as under:-

“10. Also, it is settled law in terms of Section 21 of CPC that all objections  as  to  territorial  jurisdiction  or  pecuniary  jurisdiction,  have  to be taken in a suit before framing of issues, and if not taken, such objections are waived i.e issues of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction do not go to the root of the matter unlike the issue of lack of inherent jurisdiction or the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, when a decree cannot be passed by the Court lacking the subject matter/inherent jurisdiction.”

A gainful reference can also be made to Bahrein Petroleum Company Ltd. Vs. Pappu & Ors. MANU/SC/0012/1965, wherein it has been held as under:-

“3. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent also submitted that it was open to the defendants to waive this objection, and if they did so, they could not subsequently, take, the objection. This submission is well- founded.  As  a  general  rule,  neither  consent  nor  waiver  nor  acquiescence can confer jurisdiction upon a Court, otherwise incompetent to try the suit. But Section 21 of the Code provides an exception, and a defect as to the place of suing, that is to say, the local venue for suits cognizable by the Courts under the Code may be waived under this section. The waiver under Section 21 is limited to objections in the appellate and Revisional Courts. But  Section 21 is a statutory recognition of the principle that the defect as to the place of suing under Sections 15 to 20 may be waived. Independently  of  this  section,  the  defendant  may  waive the  objection  and may be  subsequently  precluded  from  taking  it,  see Seth  Hira  Lal  Patni  v. Sri Kali Nath.”

On  a  cumulative  reading  of  the  aforesaid  decisions,  this  Court  notes that no objection  having  been  taken  to  the territorial  jurisdiction  at the  first instance, including at the stage of framing of issues, the said objection is deemed to have been waived. Consequently, the present appeal succeeds, the impugned  order  is  set  aside,  and  the  suit  is  restored  to  its  original  number. Let the matter be listed before the concerned Trial Court on 30.03.2026.

The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Trial Court.