Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
HIRDESH, J.
A.V.N. Tubes Limited Company – Appellant
Versus
M/s Dynamic Engineering – Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 142 of 2016
Decided On : 17-12-2025
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- lack of territorial jurisdiction -- suit for recovery of money filed at Gohad, District Bhind on pleadings that appellant/plaintiff company supplied goods from its factory at Malanpur, District Bhind to respondent/defendant at Pithampur, District Dhar -- registered and operational office of plaintiff company is situated at Indore -- all offers, acceptances and correspondence were exchanged through Indore office -- cheque was issued, presented and dishonoured at Indore -- unexplained delay of nine days between dispatch and alleged delivery of goods makes it improbable that goods were directly delivered from Malanpur -- on the contrary, documentary evidence produced by defendant established that goods were routed through plaintiff’s Indore warehouse and delivered at Pithampur -- no evidence was adduced to show that any agent of defendant visited Malanpur or that any contractual obligation was discharged there -- trial Court rightly concluded that Courts at Indore or Dhar alone had territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 9 & 10]
(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11, O. 7 R. 10 and O. 7 R. 10A -- plaint can be returned at any stage of proceedings -- however, once defendant has appeared, strict compliance of O. 7 R. 10A becomes mandatory. [Para 14]
(3) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11, O. 7 R. 10 and O. 7 R. 10A -- defendant had appeared -- written statement had been filed -- evidence of both parties had been recorded -- final arguments had been heard -- trial Court found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction -- it did not follow mandatory procedure under O. 7 Rule 10A -- instead, dismissed suit while directing return of plaint, which is procedurally unsustainable -- impugned order set aside to the extent it dismisses suit without compliance of O. 7 R. 10A -- trial Court directed to return plaint strictly in accordance with provisions of O. 7 R. 10A, intimate both parties of its decision, and thereafter fix date for appearance of parties before competent Court having territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 15 & 16]
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 11 & {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk dk vHkko & /ku dh olwyh ds fy, okn bl vfHkopu ds lkFk xksgn] ftyk fHkaM esa çLrqr fd;k x;k fd vihykFkhZoknh daiuh us ekyuiqj] ftyk fHkaM fLFkr vius dkj[kkus ls ihFkeiqj] ftyk /kkj esa çR;FkhZ@çfroknh dks eky çnk; fd;k Fkk & oknh daiuh dk jftLVªh—r vkSj lafØ;kRed dk;kZy; bankSj esa fLFkr & leLr çLrkoksa] Loh—fr;ksa vkSj i=&Oogkj dk vknku&çnku bankSj dk;kZy; ds ek/;e ls fd;k x;k & pkSd bankSj esa tkjh] çLrqr vkSj vuk–r gqvk & eky ds çs"k.k vkSj vfHkdfFkr ifjnk; ds e/; ukS fnol ds vLi"Vh—r foyac ls ;g vlaHkkO; gks tkrk gS fd eky lh/kk ekyuiqj ls ifjnÙk fd;k x;k & rRçfrdwy] çfroknh }kjk is'k fd, x, nLrkosth lk{; ls LFkkfir fd eky oknh ds bankSj HkkaMkxkj ls Hkstk x;k vkSj ihFkeiqj esa ifjnÙk fd;k x;k & ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha fd;k x;k fd çfroknh dk dksbZ vfHkdrkZ ekyuiqj x;k vFkok ogk¡ fdlh lafonkRed ck/;rk dk fuoZgu fd;k x;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lgh fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd bankSj vFkok /kkj ds U;k;ky;ksa dks gh {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk FkhA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 10½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 11- vk- 7 fu- 10 rFkk vk- 7 fu- 10d & okni= dk;Zokgh ds fdlh Hkh çØe ij ykSVk;k tk ldrk gS & rFkkfi] çfroknh ds milatkr gks tkus ij] vk- 7 fu- 10d dk vfrfu;efu"B vuqikyu vkKkid gks tkrk gSA ¼iSjk 14½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 11- vk- 7 fu- 10 rFkk vk- 7 fu- 10d & çfroknh milatkr gks x;k Fkk & fyf[kr dFku çLrqr dj fn;k x;k Fkk & nksuksa i{kksa dk lk{; vfHkfyf[kr gks x;k Fkk & vafre cgl lqu yh xbZ Fkh & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd mldh {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk dk vHkko gS & mlds }kjk vk- 7 fu- 10d ds v/khu vkKkid çfØ;k dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k x;k & mlds LFkku ij] okni= ykSVkus dk funs'k nsrs gq, okn [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k] tks çfØ;kRed :i ls vleFkZuh; gS & vk- 7 fu- 10d ds vuqikyu ds fcuk okn [kkfjt djus dh lhek rd vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLr vk- 7 fu- 10d ds mica/kksa dk vfrfu;efu"Bk ls vuqlj.k djrs gq, okni= ykSVkus] nksuksa i{kksa dks vius fofu'p; dh lalwpuk nsus] vkSj rnqijkar {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk okys l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k i{kdkjksa dh milatkfr ds fy, rkjh[k fu;r djus dk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks funs'kA ¼iSjk 15 ,oa 16½
ORDER :
1. The present miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(a) of CPC has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff challenging the legality, correctness, and propriety of the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) whereby, after framing issues and recording the evidence of both the parties, the trial Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently dismissed the suit while directing return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal for its adjudication, as narrated therein, are that the appellant–plaintiff instituted a civil suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,76,558/- against the respondent–defendant on the pleadings that the appellant Company supplied welded steel tubes to the respondent from its factory situated at Malanpur, District Bhind. The description of the goods supplied was mentioned in Challan-cum-Excise Gate Pass No. AVN/94/12/289 dated 02.12.1994. The goods were dispatched through Truck No. MP-07-N-3006 and transported via Industrial Transport of India under Lorry Receipt No. 3638 dated 02.12.1994. It was further pleaded that the appellant issued Invoice No. 94/12/03 dated 02.12.1994 for an amount of Rs.1,79,583.40. The goods were received by the respondent on 11.12.1994 and acknowledgment was given by the respondent’s representative. Towards payment of the said goods, the respondent issued Cheque No. 687179 dated 12.01.1995 for Rs.1,79,583.40, which upon presentation was dishonoured. Thereafter, the appellant lodged an FIR at Police Station Malanpur, resulting in registration of Crime No. 71/95, and criminal proceedings are stated to be pending. Despite issuance of a registered legal notice dated 30.01.1995, the respondent failed to make payment, compelling the appellant to institute the civil suit. It was specifically pleaded that since the goods were supplied from the appellant’s factory at Malanpur, District Bhind, a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court at Gohad.
3. Upon notice, the respondent filed a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and court fees. It was contended that no part of the cause of action arose at Malanpur and that the transaction was concluded at Indore/Pithampur, District Dhar.
4. The trial Court framed several issues including Issue No. (vii) regarding maintainability of the suit and Issue No. (xi) regarding territorial jurisdiction. After recording evidence and hearing final arguments, the trial Court decided the said issues against the appellant, held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, and passed the impugned order dismissing the suit and returning the plaint. Aggrieved thereby, the present miscellaneous appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant–plaintiff, Shri P. C. Chandil, contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the trial Court committed a grave error in holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. From the oral and documentary evidence led by the appellant, it stands fully established that the respondent placed the supply order at the appellant’s factory at Malanpur and the goods were manufactured and dispatched from Malanpur, District Bhind. Hence, a substantial part of the cause of action clearly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. It is further contended that the trial Court completely ignored material evidence demonstrating that the goods were dispatched under Central Excise Challan No. 289 dated 02.12.1994 through Industrial Transporters from Malanpur and were subsequently received by the respondent at Pithampur, District Dhar, on 11.12.1994. Mere receipt of goods at another place does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court where the contract wa
Point of Law : Recover of amount - Jurisdiction - Section 20 clearly provides that a court within whose local limits the cause of action, “wholly or in part”, arises, would have territorial jurisdict....
Territorial jurisdiction in civil matters is determined by the location of the cause of action, and a court lacking jurisdiction must return the plaint for presentation to an appropriate court instea....
The court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit is determined by accepting all statements in the plaint to be true, without evaluating their merits.
Jurisdiction in contract disputes depends on where significant acts occurred, not solely on contractual jurisdiction clauses.
The jurisdiction of courts in civil matters is determined by the location of payments made, as established under Section 20 of the CPC.
Jurisdiction for trademark infringement suits requires courts to accept plaint allegations as true; future apprehension of infringement can establish justiciability.
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
