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

2013 Supreme(Guj) 424

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde
ONGC Ltd.
Versus
M/s. Modern Construction and Co.
Civil Appeal No. 8957 of 20131—Decided on 07/10/2013

Point in Issue :
Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest for the period suit remained pending in wrong Court.

Headnote:Head Note :

       Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) — Order 7 Rule 10 — Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) — Section 14 — Suit filed in wrong Court having no jurisdiction — Subsequently on return of plaint, suit filed in proper Court — Claim for interest for the period suit remain pending in wrong Court as well — Admissibility — Finding as to — Held, that once the plaint is presented in proper Court having jurisdiction, it is a fresh suit and can not be considered to be continuation of the suit earlier filed in wrong Court having no jurisdiction — The plaintiff in such circumstances can not take advantage of it’s own wrong committed by instituting the suit before a wrong Court — In view of this Court set aside impugned judgment and decree of the High Court and restored the orders of Trial/Executing Court as well as Appellate Court — However plaintiff can get benefit of limitation in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and can also seek adjustment of Court fee paid while presenting suit in wrong Court.

       Held :

       If the Court where the suit is instituted, is of the view that it has no jurisdiction, the plaint is to be returned in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10, CPC and the plaintiff can present it before the Court having competent jurisdiction. In such a factual matrix, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the Court having no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and may also seek adjustment of Court fee paid in that Court. However, after presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded before the Court having no competence to try the same. [Para 13]

       Court is of the considered view that once the plaint was presented before the Civil Court at Surat, it was a fresh suit and cannot be considered to be continuation of the suit instituted at Mehsana. The plaintiff/respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own mistake instituting the suit before a wrong Court. The judgment and order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. [Para 19]

       Law Laid Down :

       Once plaint is presented before the Court having jurisdiction it is a fresh suit and cannot be considered to be continuation of the suit instituted in wrong Court having no jurisdiction.

       

Judgment

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application Nos. 5036-5037 of 2010, reversing and setting aside the order dated 12.3.2010, passed by the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Surat in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 29 and 30 of 2008 as well as the order dated 28.9.2007, passed in Special Execution Petition Nos. 17 and 18 of 2007, passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:

A. A contract for re-construction of cement godown, site office and warehouse for LPG Plant at Kawas in Surat District was awarded by the appellant to the respondent to be completed on or before 8.8.1984 vide agreement dated 9.2.1984. The respondent completed the work with an inordinate delay and possession could be taken by the appellant only on 31.6.1985. The respondent filed Civil Suit Nos. 60, 61 and 62 of 1986 against the appellant in the Civil Court at Mehsana to recover the outstanding dues from the appellant.

B. The Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.1994 allowed Civil Suit Nos. 61 and 62 of 1986 in favour of the respondent.

C. Aggrieved, the appellant filed First Appeal Nos. 1451, 1452 and 1453 of 1994 before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.1.1994. The High Court vide common judgment and order dated 18.3.1997 held that the Civil Court at Mehsana did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Therefore, the said judgment and decrees passed in the civil suits were set aside and the Civil Court at Mehsana was directed to return the plaints to the respondent so that the same may be presented before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction.

D. The plaints were returned to the respondent in the aforesaid civil suits, who instituted the same before the Civil Court at Surat on 3.2.1999 being Civil Suit Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of 1999. The said suits were allowed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 holding that the respondent was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,29,138/-, Rs. 1,69,757/- and Rs. 58,616/- in the respective suits with a future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.

E. The appellant complied with the decrees passed by the 3rd Addl. Senior Civil Judge and made the payment of decretal amount to the respondent calculating the interest on the principal sum from 3.2.1999, i.e. the date on which the respondent had presented the plaints in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Surat.

F. The respondent after receiving the said amount filed Special Execution Petition Nos. 17 and 18 of 2007 on 5.3.2007 claiming interest for the period 1986 to 1999, i.e. during the period when the suit remained pending before the Court at Mehsana which had no jurisdiction. The Executing Court vide order dated 28.9.2007 dismissed the Execution petition observing that respondent was entitled to interest from the date of filing of the suit at Surat and not from the date on which the plaint was presented at Mehsana.

G. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 29, 30 and 35 of 2008 before the District Court at Surat and the same were dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2010.

H. Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the said order dated 12.3.2010 by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 5036 and 5037 of 2010 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and the said applications have been allowed vide order dated 10.12.2010 holding that the respondent was entitled to interest from the date of institution of the suit at Mehsana Court. Hence these appeals.

3. Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant duly assisted by Shri Nishant Menon, Advocate has submitted that the plaints had initially been instituted at Mehsana Court which had no territorial jurisdiction to e































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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