Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifiers India Ltd. and Ors., has held that the trial court cannot return a plaint merely on the ground that the defendant's suit is pending in another court.

What is the Background of Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifiers India Ltd. and Ors. Case?

• The plaintiff has instituted Commercial Suit before the District Court, Kolhapur, seeking specific performance of purchase orders on the part of the defendant by way of restoration of services, guarantees, warranties, supply of necessary spare parts, removal of defects and keeping of power transformers in working condition during guarantee and warranty period.
  • The plaintiff has also sought monetary compensation along with interest.
• The District Court heard defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of plaint.
• The District Court, while refusing to reject the plaint, had instead returned it under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Bombay High Court. Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the order of the District Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Sandeep V Marne observed that the trial court cannot return a plaint merely on the ground that the defendant's suit is pending in another court, and it would be desirable to try both suits together.
• The Court further held that the District Court has not recorded any specific finding that it lacked jurisdiction to try or entertain Plaintiff's suit and has proceeded to return the plaint.
  • This is yet another glaring error committed by the District Court.
  • The order passed by the District Court directing return of the plaint is thus clearly unsustainable and the course of action adopted by the learned District Judge appears to be unusual and alien to law.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC
  • Rule 10 deals with the return of plaint. It states that -

(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.

Explanation. — 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.

(2) Procedure on returning plaint —On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.

• Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC
  • Rule 11 deals with the rejection of plaint. It states that -

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: —

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action.

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate.

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.