Suit Proceeds De Novo Upon Return Of Plaint; Proceedings Before Court Lacking Jurisdiction Are Non-Est: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that once a plaint is returned by a court for lack of jurisdiction, the entire suit must commence de novo before the competent court, even if evidence of the parties stood concluded before the court which returned the plaint.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar made these observations while setting aside an order of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, which had denied the defendants the right to file a fresh written statement on the ground that the statutory period of 120 days had expired.Shedding light on the governing legal principle, Justice Dhar underscored that the Supreme Court in Exl Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd (2020) has categorically held that “after the return of plaint by the court lacking jurisdiction, the suit has to proceed de novo before the competent court, even if evidence of the parties stood concluded before the court which returns the plaint.”He added that “Order 7 Rule 10 read with Rule 10A cannot be interpreted as providing any discretion to the court to proceed in the suit from the stage from which the plaint was returned.BackgroundThe litigation traced its origin to a civil suit filed by respondent No.1 before the Court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar. The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership to the extent of his share. Claims for partition by metes and bounds, possession of his share, and a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any part of the property were also sought.The defendants, the present petitioners, filed a written statement along with a counterclaim. After framing issues, the trial court treated valuation of the suit as a preliminary issue. In 19 April 2022, the Munsiff Court ruled that the valuation made by the plaintiff was deficient and directed fresh valuation and payment of court fee.When the plaintiff valued the suit at ₹1 crore, the Munsiff Court held that the pecuniary jurisdiction threshold had been crossed. Consequently, the plaint was returned and submitted to the Principal District Judge, Srinagar, who transferred the matter to the 2nd Additional District Judge (the “trial court”) for fresh consideration.When the parties appeared before the transferee court, the defendants made an application seeking permission to file a fresh written statement. The trial court, however, dismissed the request, holding that the 120-day bar under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC barred the filing of a fresh defence and thus, the instant petition was moved.Court's ObservationsAdjudicating the matter, Justice Dhar observed that the trial court had fundamentally misunderstood its role. In his words, the trial court had “straightaway directed the plaintiff to produce evidence without calling upon the defendants to file a written statement,” an approach he described as “palpably illegal.”Reproaching the trial court for ignoring the effect of lack of jurisdiction at the earlier stage, the High Court stated, “When the parties appear before a court of competent jurisdiction after the court lacking jurisdiction has fixed a date of appearance, the competent court has to proceed in the suit de novo.”Because the earlier proceedings were conducted before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, Justice Dhar held that the previous written statement and other evidence that may have been led by the parties became non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the court maintained, the defendants were entitled as a matter of right to file a fresh written statement. The HC reiterated,“It was the duty of the trial court to proceed in the suit as if the plaint had been filed before it afresh.”Justice Dhar highlighted that after the plaint's return, the transferee court cannot adopt the earlier stage of proceedings, nor can it refuse procedural rights that would be available to the parties in a fresh suit.Calling the trial court's approach a clear legal misdirection, Justice Dhar observed, “The procedure adopted by the learned trial court … is palpably illegal and cannot be countenanced in law.”He emphasised that the defendants did not even need to seek permission to file a written statement the law mandated that they must be given that opportunity. “The defendants were not even required to file an application seeking permission… it was the duty of the trial court to proceed as if the plaint had been filed before it afresh and the defendants had entered their appearance before the said court.”Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the order of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The petitioners were permitted to file their fresh written statement within 30 days.Case Title: MOHAMMAD SHAIF BHAT ALIAS WANI & ANR Vs. RAFI AHMAD BHAT ALIAS WANI AND ORS.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 25Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Suit Proceeds De Novo Upon Return Of Plaint; Proceedings Before Court Lacking Jurisdiction Are Non-Est: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags