2025:MHC:2999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.1180 of 2025

M.Rajasulochana ... Petitioner

vs.

1. Kuppayee

2. M.Suganthi

3. M.Mahesh

4. M.Lavanya ... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order dated 31.01.2025 made in O.S.No.72 of 2017 passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Perundurai (FAC) by

allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan

For Respondents : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan (for R1)

Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran (for R2 to R4)

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court returning the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the suit, the trial had already been concluded and at the stage of arguments, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was not correct and consequently, the suit fell out side the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the Court ordered return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submission of the learned counsel that, in such circumstances, the evidence already recorded by the Trial Court would stand effaced and that the same would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. He would further submit that the Court before which the plaint is re-presented ought to be directed to proceed with the matter from the stage at which the plaint was returned before the earlier Court.

3. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the judgement of a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Exl Careers Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P) Ltd., reported in (2020) 12 SCC 667.

4. In the above judgement, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that whenever a plaint is returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court in which the plaint is re-presented is required to conduct a de novo trial. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Exl Careers’s case cited supra, which reads as follows:-

“15. Modern Construction [ONGC v. Modern Construction &

Co., (2014) 1 SCC 648 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 617], referred to the consistent position in law by reference to Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass v. E.D. Sassoon & Co. [Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass v. E.D. Sassoon & Co., 1929 SCC OnLine PC 3 : (1928-29) 56 IA 128 : AIR 1929 PC 103], Amar Chand Inani v. Union of India [Amar Chand Inani v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC

115], Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekharappa [Hanamanthappa v.

Chandrashekharapp, (1997) 9 SCC 688], Harshad Chimanlal Modi (2) [Harshad Chimanlal Modi (2) v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 364] and after also noticing Joginder Tuli [Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502], arrived at the conclusion as follows:

(Modern Construction case [ONGC v. Modern Construction & Co., (2014) 1 SCC 648 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 617], SCC p. 654, para 17)

“17. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that 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 7 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.”

Joginder Tuli [Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia