SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Chh) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
N.K. Agarwal, J.
Deepak Kumar Jha
Vs.
Smt. Archana Jha and Ors.
Civil Revision No. 15 of 2011
Decided On: 03.02.2011

A court without jurisdiction cannot permit withdrawal of a suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; such withdrawal must be regarded as an order returning of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Civil Suit - Court finds no jurisdiction to try the suit, permits withdrawal - Suit not maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11(D) - Code of Civil Procedure

Fact of the Case:

The applicant objected to the jurisdiction of the Durg Civil Court in a Civil Suit, which was then withdrawn by the Plaintiff and refiled in the Patan Civil Court. The applicant raised an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the suit was not maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Ilnd Civil Judge, Class II, Durg, had no jurisdiction to try the suit and permitted the Plaintiff to withdraw the suit. However, the court held that the withdrawal should have been regarded as an order returning of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues: Jurisdiction, withdrawal of suit, maintainability under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the Code of Civil Procedure

Ratio Decidendi: A court without jurisdiction cannot permit withdrawal of a suit under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; such withdrawal must be regarded as an order returning of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Final Decision: The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

ORDER

N.K. Agarwal, J.

1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 23.12.2010, passed by Civil Judge Class-Il, Patan, Distt. Durg, in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2010, whereby the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(D) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed, is under assail in the instant petition.

2. According to the applicant, earlier Civil Suit was filed by the Respondent No. 1 in the court of Civil Judge, Class II, Durg. The applicant herein objected that the suit property is situated in village Urla, Teh. Patan, therefore, Durg Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. An application under Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Respondent for withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the Durg Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and only Patan Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The court permitted him for withdrawal of the suit on the ground that since the property in dispute is situated in village Urla, Teh. Patan, therefore Civil Court, Patan has jurisdiction to hear the suit, and thereafter, the instant suit has been filed by the Respondent before the Patan Civil Court. The applicant appeared in the case and an objection has been raised again by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that suit has been withdrawn by the Plaintiff without permission of the trial court, granting liberty to institute a fresh suit, and therefore, the instant suit is not maintainable. It was further contended that the number of Defendants are different in both the suits.

3. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the order impugned, I do not find and substance in the revision,

4. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Ilnd Civil Judge, Class I II, Durg, would reveal, having found, the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, permitted the Plaintiffs for withdrawal of the suit. A court which has no jurisdiction in respect of a suit cannot permit its withdrawal under Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. Such withdrawal must be regarded as an order returning of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.

5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top