Return of Plaint by the Court (Order VII Rules 10, 10A and 10B)

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Return of Plaint by the Court (Order VII Rules 10, 10A and 10B)

The term Plaint has not been defined in the Code. However, it can be defined as a statement of claim by presentation of which the suit is instituted. It is pleading of the plaintiff. Thus, it is a legal document which contains the written statement of the plaintiff’s claim. It is the first step towards the initiation of a suit. Through the help of plaint, the plaintiff narrates or describes the cause of action and related information which is considered as essential from the viewpoint of the suit.  Order VII Rules 10, 10A, and 10B of the Civil Procedure Code, deals with the return of plaint. The CPC empowers the civil courts to return the plaint to the plaintiff if the court believes that the plaint is not properly filed or any suit presented before it has no jurisdiction to try it.

CPC provides that 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. Once the Court has held that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, it should not have dismissed the suit but is bound to return it for presentation to proper Court. The returned plaint will start afresh when it is presented to the proper court. The freshly filed plaint in the proper court is not the continuation of the plaint presented in the improper court. The order of the court relating to return of the plaint is appealable.

Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted. Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague and ambiguous.

Grounds for Return of Plaint:

The court shall return a plaint on the following grounds:

• Court has no jurisdiction, or
• There is a valid objection to jurisdiction

According to Order VII Rule 10 (1), subject to the provisions of 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. Thus, according to Order VII Rule 10(1) of CPC, a plaint is returned on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction with the concerned court.

The court can lack jurisdiction on three occasions mentioned below;

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary Jurisdiction
• Subject matter Jurisdiction

For example, a plaint is filed in the city civil court by A against his employer for unlawful retrenchment from a job. Since there are specific labour courts to deal with these cases, the city civil court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudge and hence, plaint can be returned by the court. Under this rule, the court can return the plaint for lack of jurisdiction but the plaintiff has every right to file the plaint again in the appropriate forum.

In Kallu v. Phudan, AIR 1946 All 488 case, the Court held that where a suit filed in a revenue court is not triable by that court, the court should not dismiss the suit, but return the plaint to be presented to, the proper court.

In Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekhrappa, (1997) 9 SCC 688 case, the Court held that on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.

In Gopi Krishna v. Avil Bose, AIR 1965 Cal 59 case, the Calcutta High Court said that “at any stage of suit” must mean at any stage of the suit before judgment therein is delivered.

In Visweswara v. Nair, (1912) 35 Mad 567 case, If court has no jurisdiction, it should return the plaint even though the claim is undervalued; and when presented to the proper court, the later court is bound to give credit for the fee levied by the former court.

Explanation attached to the rule states that “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.”

If the Court has jurisdiction over some of the causes of action and thus has jurisdiction over a portion of the plaint there should be no reason why it cannot allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to lop off those portions beyond its grip and proceed with the portions within its grasp. Where the Court finds that the plaint comprises causes of action within its jurisdiction as well as causes of action outside its jurisdiction, neither the suit can be dismissed as a whole nor the plaint can be returned as a whole.

In Smt. Sheela Adhikari v. Rabindra Nath Adhikari, AIR 1988 Cal. 273 case, the court held that the plaint, if it is to be returned, must be returned either as a whole or not at all and it is not for the Court to make a dissection of the plaint and then to retain a part and to return a part.

In Secretary of State v. Natabar, AIR 1927 Pat 254 case, a suit against two defendants, cognizable by a civil court as against the first and by the revenue court as against the second was filed in a civil court. The Patna High Court, directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the revenue court, and that a copy of it should be  retained on the record for trial of the suit against the first defendant.

In Latu v. Rani Mahalaxmi Bai, AIR 1942 All 130 case, the Allahabad High Court indicated two alternatives: either to keep original plaint on the record and give a certified copy for presentation to the revenue court, or other proper court or dismiss that part of the suit which is beyond its jurisdiction and proceed to try the rest or strike out the bad part under Order VI Rule 16.

Procedure for Returning the Plaint:

The procedure for returning the plaint depends upon two circumstances. First, where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned and second, where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Case 1: Where the court in the initial hearings identify that it does not have the jurisdiction to try the case and it feels that the plaint needs to be returned

In this case, the Order VII Rule 10(2) mandates the court to endorse the following particulars on the plaint:

• Date on which the plaint was initially presented by the plaintiff.
• Date on which the plaint is being returned by the court. The returning date is not the one where the court formed the opinion but when the court actually returned the plaint.
• Cause title, i.e., the details of the party which presented the plaint.
• Reasons that compelled the court to return the plaint

In Moneys Transports v. Tanjore, AIR 1979 Mad 196 case, the Court held that the requirement of sub-rule 2 are mandatory and without the endorsement required by the sub-rule, the plaint cannot be returned and cannot be presented to the proper court. This means that the proceedings for the return of the plaint came to an end only when an endorsement was actually made on the plaint. Then only can the plaint be said to be ready for being returned for presentation to the proper Court.

Case2: where the defendant has appeared and after which the court believes that plaint needs to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.

Order VII Rule 10A applies to the situation where the plaint is returned after the defendant(s) has/have appeared before the court. The following list summarises the procedure that needs to be followed while returning the plaint:

1. The court must intimate the plaintiff through registered post or any authorized manner that the plaint is to be returned for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The plaintiff needs to appear before the court either personally or through his counsel
3. The plaintiff is required to inform the court as to where the plaintiff proposes to file the new plaint after it is returned by this court.
4. The court may fix the date of appearance of plaintiff and defendant before the competent court where the new plaint is to be filed.
5. The court may, at the request of the plaintiff, serve notices to the plaintiff and defendant requiring them to appear before the competent Court and intimating them of the return of plaint.
6. This notice shall serve as summon and no new summon will be required to be issued by the court where the returned plaint is filed

In Vicco Laboratories Bombay v. Hindustan Rimmer, AIR 1979 Del 114 case, the Court held that if after the defendant has appeared, the court is of the view that it has no jurisdiction and should, therefore, return the plaint, it must give intimation of such decision to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereupon, may make an application described in sub-rule 2. The ‘may’ in sub-rule 2 shows that it is his discretion to make or not make an application. It is not incumbent on him to do so. But if he does make the application and follows the procedure there laid down, the court shall fix the date of appearance by the parties in the court in which the plaint is to be presented and give notice of such date to the parties. Since the defendant by such notice is made awre of the suit against him and the date when he has to appear, the notice is treated as summons. As plaintiff choose the procedure laid down in sub-rule 2 and obtain an orderm, he naturally can have no right to appeal against the order returning the plaint. Application by him under sub-rule 2 is treayed as acceptance of the order of return.

In George Shipping Co. Ltd. v. MV Irene Pa Foreign Flagged Vessel, AIR 1997 Bom 280 case, the Court held that on return of plaint, the procedure laid down in rules 10 and 10A are to be followed. Fresh suit for the same cause of action is not maintainable.

Appeal Against Return of Plaint:

A Plaintiff can file an appeal from the order under Rule 10 of Order 7. Such appeal is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 (a). But where the plaint was returned on an application made by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule10A (2) such appeal is not maintainable.

In Straw Products Ltd. v. Municipal Board Bhopal, AIR 1959 MP 253 case, the Court held that an appeal lies from an order returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court, whether the order is made by the court of first instance (Order 43 Rule 1(a)) or by the court of first appeal in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by Section 107 of CPC. But no second appeal lies from the order of the first Appellant Court (Nilkanth v. Balwant, AIR 1925 Bom 431)

Power of Appellant Court to Transfer Suit to the Proper Court:

According to Order VII Rule 10 B(1), where, on an appeal against an order for the return of plaint, the Court hearing the appeal confirms such order, the Court of appeal may, if the plaintiff by an application so desires, while returning the plaint, direct plaintiff to file the plaint, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted, (whether such Court is within or without the State in which the Court hearing the appeal is situated), and fit a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is directed to be filed and when the date is so fixed it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the plaint is filed to serve the defendant with the summons for appearance in the suit, unless that Court in which the plaint is filed, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs. According to clause 2, the direction made by the Court under sub-rule (1), shall be without any prejudice to the rights of the parties to question the jurisdiction of the Court, in which the plaint is filed, to try the suit.

This rule has been added to Order VII with a view to empowering the court hearing an appeal against an order of return of plaint to direct that, instead of the plaint being returned, the suit may be transferred to the court in which it should have been instituted. Further, the provisions for abolish the necessary for serving the summons on the defendants, where the order of return of plaint was made after the appearance of the defendants in the suit.

In Latadevi v. Ramnath, AIR 1987 Bom 364 case, the Court held that the provision contained in R. 10B specify a detailed procedure and that too of a mandatory nature.

Conclusion:

As per the above-stated matter, it can be said, that jurisdiction of the court is necessary, to obtain adjudication and the decision of court without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of the law, and not binding of anyone, though this is subject to the exceptions of section 21 of CPC. Return is different from rejection and it needs to be noted. Return of plaint does not connote that the plaint had mistaken or that the rules for drafting the plaint were not conformed to. It simply means that the court is not empowered to try the suit for which the plaint is filed. On the contrary, the plaint is rejected if the essential requirements of a plaint are not provided in the plaint or if the certain elements are vague and ambiguous. on the return of plaint, the suit should be instituted when plaint is presented in the proper court. It will not be regarded as a continuation of the old suit. It will be treated as a fresh plaint subject to limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court-fees.