The necessity for specific findings on lack of jurisdiction to return the plaint and the correct procedure to be followed in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. It must be observed at the very outset that the District Court has passed a rather an unusual order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. While deciding applications fled by the Defendant seeking rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) and by Plaintiff seeking temporary injunction, the District Court has proceeded to return the plaint, invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10. It has not recorded any reasons for returning the plaint but has returned the Plaint ‘in view of’ order rejecting application for rejection of plaint.

2. To examine the correctness of the order, it would be necessary to frst condone the delay in fling the appeal. For the reasons stated in Civil Application No. 1223 of 2019, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the delay in fling the appeal stands condoned.

3. Admit. With consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the same is called out for hearing.

4. The challenge in the present Appeal is to the common Order dated 25 July 2018 passed by the District Judge-1 Kolhapur passed below Exhibit-1 returning Plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code for being presented before appropriate Court. Also challenged is the order dated 28 February 2019 rejecting the application seeking review of the Order dated 25 July 2018.

5. The Plaintiff has instituted Commercial Suit No. 4 of 2017 before the District Court, Kolhapur, seeking specifc performance of purchase orders on the part of the Defendant by way of restoration of services, guarantees, warranties, supply of necessary spare parts, removal of defects and keeping of power transformers in working condition during guarantee and warranty period. Plaintiff has also sought monetary compensation along with interest.

6. In the suit, Plaintiff also fled application for temporary injunction under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The Defendant appeared in the suit and fled application at Exhibit- 26 seeking rejection of Plaint under the provisions of Order-7, Rule 11 of the Code on the ground of absence of cause of action and lack of territorial jurisdiction. The application was opposed by the Plaintiff by fling afdavit in reply.

7. The District Court heard Defendant’s application at Exhibit-26 under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint and Plaintiff’s application at Exhibit-6 together and proceeded to pass common order dated 25 July 2018, rejecting both the applications. However, while holding that the plaint cannot be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11, the District Court has made certain observations in para-14 of its order as to why the plaint needs to be returned for being fled in the Court at Ahmedabad. After rejecting Defendant’s application at Exhibit-26 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, the District Court proceeded to pass a separate order on application at Exhibit-1 directing that in view of Order passed below Exhibit-26 and Exhibit-6, the plaint be returned to the Plaintiff as per Order 7, Rule 10 for being presented before the appropriate Court.

8. Plaintiff carries on business of manufacturing and supply of Turn Key Projects for establishing power stations for government/semi government companies, State Electricity boards, railways etc. It has its office and factory at Jaisingpur, District-Kolhapur. That Defendant carries on the business of developing power distribution and manufacturing furnace and special Transformers. Plaintiff had placed various purchase orders with the Defendant for supply of transformers Disputes have arisen between the Plaintiff and Defendant over Defendant’s alleged refusal to perform obligations arising out of purchase orders by servicing and maintaining the transformers during guarantee and warranty period. Plaintiff apparently wanted to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the Defendant for non performance of the obligations under the Purchase Order. Defendant therefore lod