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
13 paragraphs · 644 wordsJustice A.K. Shrivastava
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2008 passed by learned third Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Shahdol, Beohari, District Shahdol dismissing Civil Suit No. 5B/2008, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that a money suit has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the defendants/respondents. In the written statement interalia an objection has been raised by respondents 2 and 3 that Beohari Court is not having territorial jurisdiction.
The learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording evidence of the parties refrain itself to decide issues 1, 2, 4 and 5. Issue No. 3 is in regard to territorial jurisdiction. While deciding the said issue it has been categorically held by learned Trial Court that Beohari Court is not having territorial jurisdiction. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the impugned judgment.
Shri Alok Kumar, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that if the Beohari Court is not having any territorial jurisdiction, in such a situation the plaint ought to have been returned to the plaintiff/appellant to file it before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. In this regard Learned Counsel has invited my attention to Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and also the decision of Supreme Court R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Valllabh Glass Works Ltd., 4.
On the other hand Shri Akhil Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 argued in support of the impugned judgment.
Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
On bare perusal of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, it is revealed that at any stage of the suit the plaint may be returned to the plaintiff to present the same to the Court in which it should have been instituted. It would be fruitful to quote Rule 10 of Order 7 CPC which reads thus:-
Return of plaint.-(1) {subject to the provisions of the rule 10A, the plaint shall} at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
{Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.}
(2) Procedure on returning plaint.- On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.
On bare perusal of the aforesaid rule it is clear that it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff to submit the same before the competent Court having the jurisdiction. Rightly reliance has been placed by Learned Counsel for the appellant on the decision of R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
On this short point, the impugned judgment cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby set aside.
Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court is hereby set aside and the learned Trial Court is hereby directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff to present the same before appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. Plaintiff is hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 16.10.2012. On this date learned Trial Court shall return the plaint to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Registry is hereby directed to send the record posthaste so as to reach that Court much earlier to 16.10.2012. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.