Objection To Territorial Jurisdiction Waived If Not Raised Before Framing Of Issues: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Return Of Plaint

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an objection to territorial jurisdiction is deemed to be waived if it is not raised at the earliest stage, particularly before the framing of issues, setting aside a trial court order that had returned the plaint on such grounds.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri thus allowed an appeal filed by the Plaintiff challenging an order passed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, whereby the trial court had directed return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The bench observed that no doubt that an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC empowers and enables a Court to return the plaint “at any stage of suit” to be presented to the Court in which the suit ought to have been instituted.

“The words “at any 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.”

However, in the same breath, the Court added that 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,” the Court clarified.

Reliance was placed on Vijay Kumar Ojha Vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (2025) where the High Court, 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.

In the case at hand, the dispute arose out of a civil suit for recovery of ₹10 lakh, which the Plaintiff claimed to have advanced as a friendly loan. The amount was allegedly transferred from Plaintiff's bank account in Delhi, and the repayment cheque issued by the defendant was also presented and dishonoured in Delhi. The Plaintiff had thus asserted that part of the cause of action arose within Delhi, conferring jurisdiction on its courts.

However, the defendant later moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the transaction was connected to Karnataka, where the defendant resided and where certain documents were executed. The trial court allowed the application.

Before the High Court, it was pointed out that the defendant had not raised any objection to territorial jurisdiction in the written statement, nor was any issue framed on that aspect at the time of settlement of issues.

In this backdrop, the Court deemed the objection to territorial jurisdiction to have been waived by the defendant and as such, set aside the trial court order and restored the suit to its original number.

Appearance: Mr. Mridul Jain and Ms. Ruby Sharma, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Rohit Rattu, Advocate for Respondent

Case title: Hanuman Prasad Sharma @ H.P. Sharma v. J. Mithyleshwar

Case no.: FAO 290/2022

Click here to read order