A court lacking jurisdiction must return the plaint for presentation to the proper court rather than reject it, following established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

M. Sundar, J.

In the captioned 'Original Side Appeal' (hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity), sole appellant is 'Bharat Engineering Construction Company (P) Ltd.,' (hereinafter 'BECCPL' for the sake convenience and clarity) and the lone respondent is 'Kirloskar Brothers Limited' (hereinafter 'KBL' for the sake of brevity). To be noted, before the Hon'ble Commercial Division, BECCPL was sole plaintiff and KBL was lone defendant.

2. Captioned OSA has been presented in this CAD on 09.09.2021 assailing an order dated 11.08.2021 wherein and whereby Commercial Division has in effect held that BECCPL should have filed the main suit viz., C.S.No.567 of 2019 only in jurisdictional Court in Pune, State of Maharashtra. This '11.08.2021 order of the Hon'ble Commercial Division' which is under challenge in the captioned OSA shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. In the hearing today, Mr.G.Surya Narayanan, learned counsel for appellant (BECCPL) and Mr.Shivakumar of M/s.Sihvakumar and Suresh (Law Firm) for lone respondent (KBL) are before us i.e., before this CAD. Both the learned counsel submit in unison in one voice that the main appeal i.e., main OSA can be taken up and disposed of as both learned counsel are on the same page as regards the position that the main suit i.e., plaint ought to be presented in a Pune Court. In this regard alone, consensus has been arrived at between the parties but we make it clear that all other questions are left open and all the rights and contentions of both sides viz., BECCPL and KBL are preserved for the purpose of being canvassed in a Pune Court pursuant to this order.

4. In the light of the consensus, considering the nature of the matter, short facts shorn of granular particulars will suffice. Factual matrix in a nut shell is that BECCPL presented a plaint drawn up in the month of July of 2019 claiming a sum of a little over Rs.5.08 crores against KBL; that this claim was predicated on a contract for construction of Sea Water Pump House and Electrochlorination of IGCAR Bhavini Project at Kalpakkam; that this Court, owing to the nature of legal drill at hand, deems it appropriate to not to dilate any further on the lis; that on the plaint drawn in July of 2019 being presented, the suit was instituted and on institution of suit, the plaint manifested itself as C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.567 of 2019; that suit summons was served on KBL; that on service of suit commons, KBL took out an application in A.No.8552 of 2019; that the burden of the song in this application i.e., burden of the song qua KBL is that the suit ought to have been presented only in a Pune Court by BECCPL as the contract specifically says that the parties have agreed to go to Pune Court, the cause of action has arisen in Pune and that the suit will lie only with the Pune Court; that however the prayer in this application i.e., A. No.8552 of 2019 was 'rejection of plaint' rather than 'return of plaint'; that there will be some discussion/allusion infra in this regard as the order progresses; that this application i.e., A.No.8552 of 2019 was taken up by the Hon'ble Commercial Division (after completion of pleadings) and the Hon'ble Commercial Division in and by the impugned order (order dated 11.08.2021) held that BECCPL ought to have presented the plaint only in a jurisdictional Court in Pune inter-alia as the cause of action has arisen only in Pune (no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Madras, according to the impugned order); that the parties have agreed to submit the lis, if any, in the Pune Court; that as already alluded to supra, both the counsel are on the same page as rega