Civil Court Can Examine Territorial Jurisdiction Afresh Even If High Court Granted Leave Before Suit Transfer: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the grant of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by the High Court before transfer of a suit does not prevent the Bombay City Civil Court from examining the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh after the suit is transferred on account of enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court observed that, by virtue of Section 4A(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, the City Civil Court is required to treat the transferred suit as if it had been originally instituted before it and is competent to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it finds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh was hearing an appeal filed by the original plaintiff challenging an order of the Bombay City Civil Court returning the plaint for presentation before the proper court. When the suit was instituted before the High Court, leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent had been granted. Subsequently, following the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court, the suit was transferred to that Court. The defendant sought return of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff contended that once leave under Clause XII had been granted by the High Court, the City Civil Court could not reconsider the issue of territorial jurisdiction.

The Court observed that Section 4A(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 and Rule 3 of the Bombay City Civil Court (Transfer of Suits) Rules, 2012, provide that a transferred suit is to be heard and disposed of by the City Civil Court as if it had been originally instituted before that Court. It held that the consequence of such transfer is that the provisions of Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the City Civil Court, enabling it to examine objections relating to territorial jurisdiction.

The Court further held that the grant of leave under Clause XII confers jurisdiction on the High Court but does not ipso facto transfer that jurisdiction to the City Civil Court where the latter otherwise lacks territorial jurisdiction. It observed that the City Civil Court's consideration of the issue does not amount to reviewing the High Court's order granting leave but constitutes an inquiry into its own territorial jurisdiction under the statutory scheme governing transferred suits.

“The grant of leave under Clause XII by the High Court does not protect the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, as the City Civil Court receives the suit as if it is originally instituted before it, in view of Section 4A(2) of the Amendment Act of 2012, irrespective of fact that the City Civil Court is subordinate to the High Court,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Bombay City Civil Court returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the proper court.

Case Title: Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Punita Capoor [Appeal From Order No. 407 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order