Hanamanthappa
& ANR Vs. Chandrashekharappa & Ors [1997] INSC 111 (3 February 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
THE
3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY,1997 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.T. Nanavati S.K. Kulkarni, Adv. for
Ms.Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. for the appellants O R D E R The following Order of the
Court was delivered:
O R D
E R
This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High
Court, made in C.R.P. No.1650/96 on July 9, 1996.
Admittedly,
the respondents filed O.S.No.158/94 in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund.
On grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction the plaint was returned for
presentation to the proper court. Accordingly, after making necessary amendment
to the plaint the respondents represented the suit, which came to be numbered
as O.S. No.10/91, in Civil
Court at Dharwad. The
petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, CPC for dismissal of
the petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without seeking
permission for amendment of the plaint as required under Order VI rule 17, CPC.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
It is
contended by Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, that since the
petition had been filed with amended averments in the plaint, necessarily it
must be treated to be a fresh plaint and not one after representation to the
proper court. We find no force in the contention. The object of Order VII, Rule
10-A is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an
appellate forum or represent to the court having territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the suit. In substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the
limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as had rightly
been pointed out by the High Court.
Therefore,
it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which
did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court of
District Munsiff, Navalgund. It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to
seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. At best it can be
treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to
law. Under those circumstances, we do not think that there is any error of law
committed by the High Court in giving the above direction.
The
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
