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

2002 Supreme(MP) 618

R.B. Dixit and Chandresh Bhushan, JJ.
Punjab National Bank v. Sarman
L.P.A. No. 37 of 1996 (G); Decided on 25.6.2002.*

Advocates:
V.K. Bhoradwaj for appellant; M.M. Kaushik for respondents.

Headnote:Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.7 R. 10 -- Court having no jurisdiction -- cannot pass any order but to return the plaint for proper presentation.

       

        flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 7 fu- 10 U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk ugha && dksbZ vkns‘k ikfjr ugha dj ldrk && vfirq okni= dks leqfpr izLrqfr ds fy, okil dj ldrk gSA

       

        Dixit, J. -- Feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 17.7.1995 passed in First Appeal No. 23/88 the plaintiff-appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal mainly on the ground that when the Court below as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the trial Court had no jurisdiction then instead of proceeding to discuss the evidence on merits the plaint should have been returned for proper presentation in the proper Court as required under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

       

        The learned counsel of the appellant while relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Surajmal v. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior 1978 (1) MPWN 66 and Kundan Singh and another v. M.P. State Sahakari Vipanan Sangh Ltd., Bhopal reported in 1978 (L) MPWN 487 has submitted that when the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit then the only order that could be passed was to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court and no order of dismissal should have been passed. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel of the respondents. However, it is urged that in case the plaint is to be returned, there should be no observation regarding any extension of the period of limitation.

       

        For the reasons stated hereinabove this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the trial Court are hereby set aside. It is directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff-appellant with an endorsement for presentation to the proper Court.

Punjab National Bank vs Sarman - 2002 Supreme(MP) 618
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