Hanamanthappa & Anr vs Chandrashekharappa & Ors
- SCC(1997) 9 SCC 688
- Neutral1997 INSC 91
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 1307
- SCR[1997] 1 SCR 846
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a plaint is returned by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction and is subsequently re-presented to the proper court with material alterations or additional averments, such re-presentation constitutes a fresh suit within the meaning of Order VII, Rule 10-A, CPC, and need not be dismissed merely because the plaintiff did not seek formal amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC; the re-presented plaint is subject to the applicable limitations periods, pecuniary jurisdiction requirements, and court fee obligations as they stood at the time of original presentation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.T. Nanavati S.K. Kulkarni, Adv. for Ms.Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. for the appellants O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, made in C.R.P. No.1650/96 on July 9, 1996.
Admittedly, the respondents filed O.S.No.158/94 in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. On grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. Accordingly, after making necessary amendment to the plaint the respondents represented the suit, which came to be numbered as O.S. No.10/91, in Civil Court at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, CPC for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without seeking permission for amendment of the plaint as required under Order VI rule 17, CPC. The High Court dismissed the petition.
It is contended by Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, that since the petition had been filed with amended averments in the plaint, necessarily it must be treated to be a fresh plaint and not one after representation to the proper court. We find no force in the contention. The object of Order VII, Rule 10-A is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum or represent to the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court of District Munsiff, Navalgund. It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law. Under those circumstances, we do not think that there is any error of law committed by the High Court in giving the above direction.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free