It is a trite law that plaint could be returned
at any stage of the suit to be presented to the
Court in which the suit should have been
instituted, if the Court finds that the Court did
not have the territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction to try the suit. There are no
conditions or circumstances specified in Rule 10
for return of the plaint, as specified for
rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 of Order
VII. Though not specifically stated, Rule 11
casts duty on the Court to reject the plaint, if
the case falls under any of the clauses mentioned
therein. If both the provisions are perused
closely, it transpires that both are independent
provisions available to the defendant in the
suit. Where the plaint does not disclose a cause
of action, it is liable to be rejected under
Clause (a) of Rule 11 and could not be returned
under Rule 10. Similarly, where the relief
claimed is not valued properly or if properly
valued, but the plaint is written upon paper
insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff on
being required by the Court to correct the
valuation or to submit the requisite stamp paper
as the case may be within the time fixed by the
Court fails to do so, the plaint is liable to be
rejected under Clause (b) or Clause (c), as the
case may be, of Rule 11 and could not be returned
under Rule 10. Similarly, where the suit appears
from the statement made in the plaint to be
barred under any law, then also the plaint is
liable to be rejected Clause (d) of under Rule 11
and could not be returned under Rule 10. Thus, a
duty is cast on the Court to reject the plaint
when the same is hit by any of the infirmities
provided in the clauses of Rule 11 even without
the intervention of the defendant. Whereas the
plaint could be returned under Rule 10 only when
the Court comes to the conclusion at any stage
of the suit that the plaint was not presented to
the Court having jurisdiction to try the suit,
and under the circumstances, it has to be
returned to be presented to the Court in which
the suit should have been instituted. Thus, on
the plain reading of the said provisions as
contained in Rule 10 and 11 of Order VII, it
clearly emerges that they are mutually exclusive
to each other, and the reliefs could not be
prayed for alternatively, either under Rule 10 or
under Rule 11 as sought to be prayed for in the
instant case by the applicant – defendant before
the trial Court. The Court, therefore, is the
opinion that such a composite application under
Rule 10 and Rule 11 of Order VII as such would
not be maintainable. {PARA 6}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 of 2015
H D F C BANK LIMITED.
V
ASHAPURA MINECHEM LIMITED..
CORAM: MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 13/10/2017
