Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Thilagam – Appellant
Versus
S.D.Senthil Kumar – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2843 of 2023 | CMP.No.17645 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.Jeremiah Gregory John
For the Respondents: Mrs.Bhargavi Sundarrajan for Mr.T.Sundarrajan for R4 : R1 to R3-no appearance
The court reaffirmed that a trial court must address jurisdictional issues and has the authority to return a plaint if it lacks territorial competence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Jurisdiction of City Civil Court - The revision petition seeks to set aside an order rejecting a plaint based on jurisdictional grounds - The Court held that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the cause of action arose outside its territorial limits. (Paras 3, 8, 9)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, Order 7 Rule 10 - Powers of the Court - The Court emphasized that if a lack of jurisdiction is brought to its notice, it should exercise its power to return the plaint, even if it cannot reject it outright. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint claiming that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction as all defendants operated outside Chennai, necessitating the case to be transferred to the appropriate court at Arakkonam.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court failed to acknowledge its lack of jurisdiction, leading to the improper dismissal of the rejection application. The plaintiff should approach the competent Court at Arakkonam.
Issues: The key issue addressed was the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court in relation to the defendants' locations and cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be addressed; the lower court should have acted under its powers to return the plaint to the proper forum.
Result: The order of the trial Court was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court discussed jurisdictional grounds for rejecting a plaint. (Para 2) |
| 2. the petitioner asserted jurisdiction lies in arakkonam. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the trial court failed to properly address territorial jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 8) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.No.2843 of 2023 and CMP.No.17645 of 2023 Thilagam ... Petitioner Vs.
1. S.D.Senthil Kumar
2. Field General Manager, Office of FGM, Indian Bank, No.45, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai - 8.
3. Zonal Manager, Indian Bank Zonal Office, No.46-51, Katpadi Road, 3rd Floor, TMK Complex, Vellore - 632 004.
4. The Manager, Indian Bank, No.127, Sholinghur Road, Arakkonam - 1. ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decretal order dated 22.09.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.2044 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai, II Assistant Judge, FAC/III Assistant Court.
For Petitioner : M/s.Jeremiah Gregory John For Respondents : Mrs.Bhargavi Sundarrajan for Mr.T.Sundarrajan for R4 : R1 to R3-no appearance
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated
22.09.2022 made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.2044 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai, II Assistant Judge, FAC/III Assistant Court.
2. The revision petition is filed at the instance of the fourth defendant, who sought for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in I.A.No.3 of 2021. The ground on which the rejection was sought for is that the City Civil Court, Chennai has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would take me through the array of defendants as well as cause of action and the reliefs sought for in the suit and would point out that the entire cause of action is only within the jurisdiction of Arakkonam, which is outside the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Chennai and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, in order for the Court to entertain the suit for the reliefs that were prayed. He would also point out that excepting the first defendant, all the other defendants are situate and carrying on business only at Arakkonam and further no relief has been sought for as against first defendant. Therefore, it is contended that the City Civil Court, Chennai ought to have allowed the application.
4. Learned Counsel for the Bank / the third defendant in the suit would also state that even in their written statement they have particularly challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, on the ground that the City Civil Court, Chennai lacks jurisdiction and on that ground, the suit was sought to be dismissed.
5. The contesting first respondent despite service of notice has not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 7. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the City Civil Court, Chennai has no jurisdiction to try the suit for the reliefs that have been prayed for in O.S.No.2044 of 2020.
8. I have gone through the order of the trial Court. The trial Court has not addressed the question of jurisdiction in a judicious manner and only proceeded to hold that the plaintiff has a case on merits and therefore, parties will have to be given an opportunity to contest the suit and the plaint cannot be rejected. Unfortunately, the trial Court failed to see that even though the plaint need not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., the Court on being brought to its notice that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, should have invoked its powers under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC and returned the plaint to be presented before the competent Court. 9. Admittedly, even from a reading of the plaint, it is clear that the City Civil Court, Chennai lacks jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit
