Jurisdiction is the foundation of any judicial proceeding. A decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity, unenforceable in law, and can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings. One of the most significant procedural safeguards under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is provided in Order VII Rule 10, which empowers a court to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court when it finds itself lacking jurisdiction.
The issue becomes complex when an amendment application is filed simultaneously, as plaintiffs may attempt to cure jurisdictional defects through alterations in pleadings. The key question arises: Is it mandatory for the trial court to return the plaint immediately once it finds a lack of jurisdiction, or can it defer this by considering amendment applications first?
This article examines this issue in depth, with reference to statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) in Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira, WP No. 375/2025 (decided on 25 September 2025).
Statutory Framework
1. Order VII Rule 10 CPC – Return of Plaint
- Provides that a plaint shall be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted.
- This is a mandatory duty once the court concludes it lacks territorial, pecuniary, or subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The rule is procedural but serves substantive justice by ensuring cases are tried by courts competent in law.
2. Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint
- Distinguishes between rejection (for lack of cause of action, undervaluation, insufficient stamp duty, or being barred by law) and return of plaint.
- Rejection leads to termination of proceedings, while return allows the plaintiff to approach the correct forum.
3. Section 9 CPC
- Recognises the jurisdiction of civil courts over all civil disputes unless expressly or impliedly barred.
Judicial Approach to Jurisdiction and Return of Plaint
1. The Doctrine of Nullity
The Supreme Court in Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings. Neither consent nor waiver can confer jurisdiction where it is inherently absent.
2. Return of Plaint v. Amendment Applications
Courts have often been faced with the dilemma: when both a return of plaint application and an amendment application are pending, which should be decided first?
Delhi High Court in HSIL Ltd. v. Imperial Ceramic (2018 SCC OnLine Del 7185) held that a court which inherently lacks jurisdiction cannot first allow an amendment to confer jurisdiction upon itself. The plaint must be examined as it originally stood.
Bombay High Court in Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP v. Gregory & Nicholas (2025) reiterated that jurisdiction cannot be artificially created through amendments to avoid the return of the plaint.
2025 Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) Judgment
In Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira, WP 375/2025 (decided on 25 September 2025), the High Court dealt directly with the issue.
Background
- The plaintiff sought damages for defamation, professional dues, and declaratory relief.
- The defendant moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, arguing the dispute fell under the Commercial Courts Act, thus outside the jurisdiction of the civil judge.
- Before the application could be decided, the plaintiff sought an amendment to the valuation clause to split reliefs, arguably to retain jurisdiction in the trial court.
Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court chose to hear the amendment application first and deferred the application for the return of the plaint.
High Court’s Ruling
Justice Valmiki Menezes set aside the trial court’s order, holding that:
- The court must first examine the plaint as originally filed.
- If the plaint discloses a lack of jurisdiction, the plaint must be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
- An amendment cannot be used to confer jurisdiction where it was originally absent.
- However, the trial court may consider both applications simultaneously to determine if the amendment merely clarifies but does not cure an inherent jurisdictional defect.
Thus, return of the plaint is mandatory if jurisdiction is lacking; an amendment cannot cure inherent defects.
Key Principles Emerging from Case Law
- Jurisdiction must exist on the date of filing: The competence of a court is tested when the plaint is first filed, not by subsequent amendments.
- Court lacking jurisdiction cannot allow an amendment to create jurisdiction: As held in HSIL Ltd. and affirmed in Akshay Quenim, a court cannot indirectly assume jurisdiction it does not possess.
- Return v. Rejection: Where the plaint is maintainable but filed in the wrong court, return is proper. Where the plaint itself is defective or barred, rejection is warranted.
- Mandatory Duty: Once jurisdictional incompetence is identified, return of the plaint is mandatory, not discretionary.
- Simultaneous Consideration: Courts may simultaneously examine both return and amendment applications to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, but return must take precedence where jurisdiction is inherently lacking.
Key Highlights of the Case
Justice Valmiki Menezes stated:
Unfortunately, the Trial Court, has in para 10 of its order, taken a view that it had to consider the amendment application and whether its grant would bring the suit within its pecuniary jurisdiction, and only if amendment application fails to bring the suit within its jurisdiction, the application for return of plaint would be considered on merits.
This, in my view, is an erroneous approach, as what is necessary is for the Court to consider whether, in the first place it would have the jurisdiction to issue summons/notice in the suit as framed, and if it totally lacked jurisdiction, it would either have to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 or return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 to be presented before a Court with jurisdiction. It would also have to examine the effect of the amendment, which, if allowed, would bring the suit, which was otherwise barred, within its jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The law is now well-settled: When a trial court inherently lacks jurisdiction, it is mandatory to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by amendment, waiver, or consent.
The 2025 Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) judgment in Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira reaffirms this principle and corrects the trial court’s error of prioritising amendment over jurisdictional determination. Courts must examine jurisdiction first, and only if jurisdiction exists can they proceed to consider amendments.
This approach preserves judicial discipline, prevents forum shopping, and upholds the sanctity of jurisdictional boundaries envisaged under procedural law. In sum, returning the plaint is not merely permissible but mandatory when jurisdiction is lacking.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams