Bombay High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order, Says Jurisdictional Objection Under Order VII Rule 10 Must Be Addressed Before Considering Amendment of Plaint
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay at Goa Single Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes set aside a Civil Judge’s order that prioritized hearing an amendment application before a plea for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court stated that when such an application is filed by the defendant, the trial court must first examine it, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by an amendment if the court lacked it at the time of filing the plaint. The dispute arose from a defamation and contractual-dues suit, and the trial court was directed to consider both applications together.
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent, a chartered accountant, seeking damages for alleged defamation, recovery of professional dues, and a declaration regarding a cheque he claimed was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt. The respondent alleged that the petitioner, a businessman, had published material on Instagram that harmed his reputation and had also failed to pay an outstanding amount of ₹5,19,390 for professional accounting and finance services rendered for the petitioner’s restaurant business. The suit sought compensation of ₹50,00,000 for loss of reputation, a public apology and retraction, a declaration concerning the cheque of ₹50,00,000, and recovery of the outstanding professional dues.
Also Read: Supreme Court Jails Tenant for Defying Order to Vacate Premises, Fines Elderly Co-Tenant ₹5 Lakh
The respondent stated in the plaint that the services had been provided under engagement letters dated 18 August 2023 and 14 February 2024, which were accepted by the petitioner. The suit was valued at ₹50,00,000 for court-fee purposes. After summons were issued, the petitioner, as defendant, applied under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the dispute arose from a commercial transaction and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the designated commercial court rather than the civil court.
Following this, the respondent applied to amend the plaint to split the valuation of reliefs among the claims for damages, apology, cheque declaration, and recovery of dues. The trial court decided to hear the amendment application first before addressing the defendant’s jurisdictional objection.
The petitioner challenged this approach before the High Court, contending that the trial court should first determine whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as initially filed and that an amendment could not confer jurisdiction where it was otherwise lacking. The High Court examined the plaint and directed that both applications be considered together, with priority given to assessing jurisdiction
The High Court observed: “In my opinion, it is not in every case that the Court would consider the amendment application first, and then consider the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint or under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint. The correct approach that the Court would have to follow would be to examine the plaint as it stood when filed, and consider whether on a holistic reading of the plaint, the Court totally lacked or inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”
The Court further stated: “If it did, it may not be appropriate for the Court, if it inherently lacks jurisdiction, either because the statute bars its jurisdiction or where the statute confers jurisdiction to try particular types of suits before a different forum, to allow an amendment application and bring a suit within its jurisdiction.”
On pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court recorded: “If the plaint as originally filed, was of a valuation which was higher than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court which had issued summons, such Court would lack the pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Such a Court would then not be permitted to allow an amendment to reduce the value of a suit, to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court.”
In examining precedents cited by the respondent, the Court distinguished them. It noted: “Gaganmal Ramchand was a case where the original plaint did not disclose a complete cause of action and was sought to be amended at a later date, when the documents which completed the cause of action came to the hands of the Plaintiff. It was in that context that the Court held that under such circumstances, the plaint need not be rejected since the amendment application was based upon a subsequent event which completed the cause of action.”
The Court also observed: “In Devichand Solanki, the Bombay High Court was considering the effect of substitution of facts in a plaint by an amendment application, and held that in the facts and circumstances of that case, it is only after the amendment were allowed that the objections as to jurisdiction could be taken up. Neither of these cases apply on facts to the present matter.”
On the reliance placed by the petitioner, the Court agreed: “In Vivienda Luxury Homes, this Court was dealing with a case where the Trial Court held that it would decide an application for return of plaint before it would entertain an application for amendment of the same plaint, which was filed later in point of time. After referring to the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in HSIL Limited has held that the Court dealing with the suit has to examine whether the essential ingredients that confer jurisdiction on the Court are disclosed in the plaint or are missing, and a Court that does not have jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to confer upon itself the jurisdiction that it lacks, by allowing amendment of the pleadings.”
The Court further quoted the Delhi High Court’s view in HSIL Limited: “If the plaint in these suits as it exists, does not disclose this Court to be having territorial jurisdiction, then the only option for this Court is to return/reject the plaint and this Court would not have jurisdiction to even consider the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and which amendment, if allowed, would disclose the plaint as having the necessary averments for this Court to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”
Justice Menezes concluded: “I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in HSIL Limited, in that the Trial Court would be required to examine the plaint as it stood, and based upon the averments of the plaint, if it inherently lacked jurisdiction to take up the suit, it has to reject or return the plaint as the case may be without looking into the amendment.”
Justice Menezes directed: “The Trial Court shall now consider the averments made in the plaint as they stood when the plaint was brought before the Court, while also considering the effect of the amendment, if allowed. On considering both the applications, if it concludes that the suit as originally filed is a commercial suit, the Trial Court shall return the plaint to be presented before the appropriate Commercial Court, in which case it will lack the jurisdiction to grant the amendment application.”
“However, if on considering both the applications, it concludes that the amendment application, if granted would have no effect on its jurisdiction, it would proceed to reject the application under Order 7 Rule 10 and consider the amendment application on its own merits. Obviously, therefore, the Trial Court would have to consider both the applications simultaneously.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with the impugned order quashed and the Rule made absolute.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vibhav Amonkar with Mr. Raj Chodankar and Mr. Omkar Bhave, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Kaif Noorani, Advocate
Case Title: Mr. Akshay Quenim v. Mr. Royce Savio Pereira
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-GOA:1827
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 375 of 2025
Bench: Justice Valmiki Menezes
