# Courts Cannot Use Amendments to Create Jurisdiction Where None Exists: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling clarifying the procedural hierarchy of civil litigation, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has mandated that trial courts must prioritize the assessment of their own jurisdiction before entertaining amendments to a plaint. Justice Valmiki Menezes, presiding over the matter, underscored that a court lacking inherent jurisdiction cannot "cure" its own incompetence by allowing an amendment that retroactively confers that authority.

The Procedural Deadlock

The dispute arose from Special Civil Suit No. 40/2024/B , where the Respondent, Mr. Royce Savio Pereira, had filed a suit against Mr. Akshay Quenim for defamation and recovery of professional dues. The suit was valued at Rs. 50,00,000. Following service, the Defendant raised an objection under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the suit involved a commercial transaction covered by the Commercial Courts Act, and thus the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed.

While the jurisdiction application was pending, the Plaintiff filed a separate application to amend the plaint, effectively splitting the valuation of his claims to perhaps circumvent a jurisdictional hurdle. The Trial Court had ruled that it would hear the amendment application first. Setting this order aside, the High Court intervened to correct what it termed an "erroneous approach."

A Corrective Approach to Jurisdictional Challenges

The High Court’s ruling establishes a clear standard for trial courts. Justice Menezes emphasized that the court must first look at the plaint exactly as it was filed. If the initial pleading discloses that the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit—whether due to pecuniary limits or because the matter falls under the purview of a specialized forum like the Commercial Court—the court has no authority to allow an amendment that fundamentally alters the nature of the suit to bring it within its reach.

"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 judgment stated.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that while amendments are generally permitted to ensure justice, they cannot serve as a mechanism to bypass statutory bars. The court noted:

• "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."
• "If [a court] inherently lacks jurisdiction... it may not be appropriate for the Court... to allow an amendment application and bring a suit within its jurisdiction."
• "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... it has to reject or return the plaint."

Implications for Future Litigation

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that filing an amendment application does not create a protective shield against a challenge to a court's jurisdiction. The High Court has ordered the Trial Court to consider both the application for the return of the plaint and the amendment application simultaneously and systematically. If the suit is found to be essentially commercial in nature, the Trial Court must cease proceedings and return the plaint for presentation before the correct forum, as it would lack the jurisdiction to hear the amendment at all.

By prioritizing the "test of jurisdiction" over the "desire to amend," the Bombay High Court has reinforced the sanctity of statutory forums and the necessity of filing suits in the appropriate court from the outset.