!. INDAIN PERFORMING RIGHTS SOCIETY LTD. V.
SANJAY DALIA
AND ANR.
FACTS - The plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit praying for relief against defendant No.1 so
as to prevent infringement of the rights of the plaintiff without obtaining the licence. The
defendant owns cinema halls in Maharashtra and Mumbai where infringement is alleged and
the entire cause of action, as alleged in the plaint, has arisen in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Civil Suit has been filed in the High Court at Delhi, by virtue of the fact that the Branch
Office of the plaintiff is situated at Delhi and the plaintiff is carrying on the business at Delhi.
However, it is not disputed that the plaintiff’s Head Office is situated at Mumbai. The
objection was raised by the defendant with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court at
Delhi.
REASONING - In our opinion, in a case where cause of action has arisen at a place where
the plaintiff is residing or where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually
or voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain would oust the
jurisdiction of other place where the cause of action has not arisen though at such a place, by
virtue of having subordinate office, the plaintiff instituting a suit or other proceedings might
be carrying on business or personally works for gain.
#. SCG CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD. V. K.S. CHAMANKAR
INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
FACTS - A suit was filed by M/S SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd (“Appellant”) on 10 March
2017 claiming a sum of INR 6,94,63,114/-. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
(“Defendant No.1”) was served with the summons in the suit on 14 July 2017. 120 days from
this date leads to 11 November 2017, by which date no written statement was filed before the
court. In the meanwhile, Defendant No.1 filed an application for rejection of the plaint under
Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. This application was rejected on 5 December 2017.
Defendant No.1 then sought for a period of seven days to file its written statement. The court
granted Defendant No.1 time till 15 December 2017 to file its written statement subject to the
payment of costs to the Plaintiff.
On 6 August 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application contending that recent amendments to the
CPC do not permit filing of the written statement beyond the period 120 days from the date
of service of the summons of the suit. By an order dated 24 September 2018, the court held
that the order dated 5 December 2017 had attained finality and that since Defendant No.1 had
filed its written statement on 15 December 2017 the same should be taken on record. The
Appellant accordingly filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court of India
against the orders dated 5 December 2017 and 24 September 2018 respectively.
REASONING - The Supreme Court held that ordinarily a written statement is supposed to be
filed within a period of 30 days. However, a grace period of a further 90 days is granted
within which the written statement can be filed, which the court, may allow for reasons to be
recorded in writing and on payment of costs by the defendant. Of pertinent importance is the
fact that beyond the 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the
right to file the written statement and Order VIII Rule 1 provides that the court shall not
allow the written statement to be taken on record. Order VIII, Rule 10 of the CPC further
buttresses this by adding that the court has no further power to extend the time beyond this
period of 120 days.
$. M/S EXL CAREERS & ANR V. FRANKFIN AVIATION SERVICES PVT.
LTD.
FACTS - The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a civil suit at the Court at Gurgaon for
recovery against the defendants (petitioners herein). On 26.08.2011, the defendant filed an
application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction.
It would be pertinent to mention that the ground taken was that the cause of action arose at
Meerut and no cause of action arose at Gurgaon and further the defendants did not reside at
Gurgaon.
ISSUE - The issue which needs to be resolved is “whether after a plaint is returned in terms
of Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 10A, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), should the trial in the
Court where the plaint is now filed start de novo or from such stage at which the plaint was
ordered to be returned?”
REASONING - In our view, the same principles which govern Section 21 and Order XIV
CPC should apply to Order VII Rule 10 and 10A CPC also and the time of the Court, the
parties and the witnesses should not be wasted. When the Court orders a return of the plaint,
we prima facie feel that the Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction should return the plaint,
which is the property of the plaintiff, to the plaintiff but should also transfer the other
material on record to the Court to which the plaintiff applies for transfer in terms of Order
VII Rule 10A. This would avoid duplicity of proceedings, evidence and contradictions in
pleadings and evidence, if two sets of pleadings and evidence are allowed in the same set of
proceedings. In the case in hand, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and
arguments. Pleadings and evidence are over.
