Recently, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that once a plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction, the suit must recommence de novo before the competent court, even if pleadings and evidence were already concluded earlier, observing that proceedings conducted by a court lacking jurisdiction are non-est in the eyes of law.
The case stemmed from a civil suit filed before the Court of the 2nd Additional Munsiff, in which the plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership to the extent of his share in immovable property measuring 05 kanals and 10 marlas, along with reliefs of partition by metes and bounds, possession, and a permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants entered an appearance by filing a written statement and counterclaim, after which issues were framed and the question of valuation was taken up as a preliminary issue. The trial court later found that the suit had not been properly valued and directed rectification of the valuation and payment of the court fee. Upon the suit being revalued at Rs. 1 crore, the court concluded that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and accordingly returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.
The matter was then placed before the Principal District Judge and assigned to the court of the 2nd Additional District Judge for fresh consideration. At that stage, the defendants sought to place a fresh written statement on record, but the request was declined on the ground that the statutory period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC had elapsed, leading to the present challenge.
The Petitioners contended that once the plaint was returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, all earlier proceedings stood wiped out, entitling the defendants to file a fresh written statement as a matter of right before the transferee court. The Counsel argued that the bar under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC could not apply because the suit, in law, had to begin afresh, while referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Exl Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Respondents, though unrepresented before the High Court, were supported by the reasoning adopted by the trial court, which held that even after transfer, the defendants were bound by the statutory timeline for filing a written statement, and permitting a fresh defence would defeat the mandatory nature of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.
Justice Sanjay Dhar found that the trial court had fundamentally misunderstood the legal effect of the return of a plaint. Analysing Order VII Rule 10 read with Rule 10A CPC and the law laid down in the case Exl Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that “after the return of plaint by the court lacking jurisdiction, the suit has to proceed de novo before the competent court, even if evidence of the parties stood concluded before the court which returns the plaint.”
The Court stressed that these provisions leave no discretion to continue the suit from an earlier stage. Criticising the trial court’s approach, Justice Dhar observed that directing the plaintiff to lead evidence without calling upon the defendants to file a written statement was “palpably illegal and cannot be countenanced in law.” He further emphasised that once it is established that the earlier court lacked jurisdiction, the written statement and evidence recorded there become non-est, and procedural rights available in a fresh suit must be restored in full.
Allowing the petition, the Court set aside the order of the 2nd Additional District Judge, and permitted the defendants to file a fresh written statement within 30 days, holding that when a plaint is returned for want of jurisdiction, the transferee court must treat the matter as a fresh suit and cannot deny procedural rights by invoking timelines from proceedings that are legally void.
Case Title: Mohammad Shaif Bhat alias Wani & Anr. v. Rafi Ahmad Bhat alias Wani & Ors.
Case No.: CM(M) No. 75 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Showkat Ali Khan
Advocate for the Respondent: None appeared
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com
