Rajasthan High Court Quashes Re-Registration Of Returned Suit | Refiling Without New Pleadings Is Procedural Abuse | Returned Plaint Cannot Be Re-Instituted Without Fresh Cause Of Action
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Commercial Court No. 1, Jaipur. The Commercial Court had allowed the re-registration of a suit without verifying whether the requisite cause of action was established within its territorial jurisdiction. The High Court directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for filing before the appropriate forum of law.
The case revolved around a dispute concerning the alleged violation of registered designs under the Designs Act, 2000. M/S Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur, filed a suit against M/S Arta Broch Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, alleging that the defendant copied its registered crockery designs, causing substantial business losses.
Initially, the defendant challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, asserting that it neither conducted business nor had any establishment in Jaipur. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC read with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Commercial Court partly allowed the application and returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the cause of action in Jaipur.
The plaintiff did not file an appeal or review against the order dated 21.01.2021 but instead submitted the same plaint again before the Commercial Court, asserting newly discovered evidence—bills and invoices indicating sales in Jaipur. Despite these assertions, no amendments were made in the plaint to reflect these new facts. The Commercial Court, without issuing notice to the defendant, re-registered the suit and issued summons.
The defendant again challenged this action, contending that without incorporating new averments into the plaint, the court could not have re-registered the same suit.
The High Court carefully examined the proceedings and observed that "the originally returned plaint does not contain any such pleadings stating that the defendant carry-out business at Jaipur or within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Court."
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, recorded that: "Unless and until new facts are incorporated in the plaint about the cause of action, such plaint cannot be entertained."
The court further observed: "Merely on the basis of certain averments made in the application under Section 151 CPC that the defendant is doing its business by copying the designs of the plaintiff at Jaipur and mere issuance of the bills, vouchers, invoices of the same at Jaipur cannot be a sufficient ground to institute the same suit before the same Court."
Citing the case of G. Nagaraj and Anr. Vs. B.P. Mruthunjayanna and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1270, the court reiterated that: "When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint."
The Court rejected the argument that the order dated 09.09.2021 rejecting the defendant's fresh application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had attained finality. Justice Dhand stated:
"Once it is found by this Court that the re-registration order dated 23.02.2021 of suit is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law, then the successive order passed by the Commercial Court could not come in the way of the defendant."
Justice Dhand relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer reported in AIR 1961 SC 372, recording:
"When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it becomes the duty of the courts to give such relief in fit cases, and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons."
The Court also remarked on the essential principle of preventing misuse of judicial process, stating: "A plaint without specific averments about cause of action cannot be allowed to be maintained on the basis of any application submitted under Section 151 CPC."
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 and allowed the writ petition. It directed the Commercial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing before the appropriate forum of law. Additionally, the connected suit S.B. Other Original Suit No. 2/2022 was also directed to be sent back to the Commercial Court for returning it to the plaintiff.
The concluding portion of the judgment recorded: "In view of the discussions made herein above, the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 is quashed and set aside and the instant writ petition stands allowed. The Commercial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff to file the same before the appropriate forum of law."
All pending applications stood disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Petitioner/Defendant(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Mr. Meyul Mittal
For Respondent/Plaintiff(s): Mr. G.D. Bansal
Case Title: Arta Broch Ceramics Private Limited Vs. Clay Craft (India) Private Limited
Case Numbers: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4354/2021; Connected with S.B. Other Original Suit No. 2/2022
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
