Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Jai Prakash Dwivedi – Appellant
Versus
Hirise Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
CM(M) 146 of 2023 & CM APPL. No.4397-99 of 2023
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Cost - Territorial Jurisdiction - Imposition of cost quashed by the court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order directing the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction, along with the imposition of a cost of Rs.50,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the imposition of such cost appeared to be in the nature of a penalty, which is unsustainable in law, considering that the petitioner had been diligently following the case on the assumption of proper territorial jurisdiction.
Issues: Imposition of cost on the petitioner and the sustainability of such imposition in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that imposing a cost as a penalty for a genuine mistake in pursuing remedies in a particular court on the assumption of proper territorial jurisdiction is unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the imposition of the cost of Rs.50,000, while leaving the other aspects of the impugned order untouched.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2022 in CS (COMM) 637/2022 titled "Jai Prakash Dwivedi vs. Hirise Facility Management Ltd. & Ors.," whereby the learned Trial Court had directed the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction on the ground that there was no territorial jurisdiction available with it.
2. Ms. Mansi Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not challenging the return of the plaint, however, is aggrieved by the cost of Rs.50,000/- that was imposed by the learned Trial Court, simultaneously while returning the plaint to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Ms. Bajaj submits that the suit was withdrawn voluntarily by the petitioner to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction and imposing of such cost is not only harsh but also onerous on the petitioner.
4. Ms. Bajaj also submits that imposition of such cost may be not appropriate in the fact and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the petitioner/plaintiff had been diligently following his case on the assumption that the Court had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis.
5. After having heard the learned counsel and perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the imposition of such cost upon the petitioner appears to be in the nature of a penalty which is unsustainable in law for the reason that any party may make a genuine mistake in pursuing its remedies in a particular Court of law on the assumption that the learned Court has the proper territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis.
6. In that view of the matter, the cost of Rs.50,000/- as directed to be paid to each of the respondents-defendants vide the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 is quashed and set aside to that extent alone.
7. The impugned order, insofar as other aspects are concerned, remains untouched.
8. Accordingly, the petition alongwith pending applications stands disposed of with no order as to cost.
Imposing a cost as a penalty for a genuine mistake in pursuing remedies in a particular court on the assumption of proper territorial jurisdiction is unsustainable in law.
The Court emphasized the necessity of filing cases in the appropriate jurisdiction, highlighting procedural delays should not hinder access to justice.
Point of law: As per sub-Rule(2) to Rule 10 of Order VII of CPC on returning of a counter claim (plaint), the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the part....
The main legal point established is that in cases of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the proper remedy is to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate court with te....
Only the plaintiff can file for the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC; the defendant may raise jurisdictional issues as a defense but cannot seek return.
Under-valuation of the suit and entitlement to claim interest
Territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the order is made and where the consequences fall on the person concerned. Forum conveniences should be considered, especially for retired em....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
