Summary
A plaint returned for presentation before the competent court must ordinarily be treated as a fresh plaint and the trial commence de novo. Order VII Rule 10A facilitates appearance without granting the continuation discretion available on statutory transfer. Modern Construction was affirmed and the contrary Oriental Insurance ruling overruled. Nevertheless, considering the appellant’s conduct and the completed evidence, the Court exceptionally declined under Articles 136 and 142 to disturb the order permitting continuation in this case.
Issues
- Whether proceedings continue from the earlier stage after return and re-presentation of a plaint.
- Whether the appellant should receive relief despite the correct legal rule.
Provisions considered
- Order VII Rules 10 and 10A; Sections 24(2) and 25(3), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Distinguished fresh institution after return of plaint from transfer, where continuation or retrial may be directed. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Articles 136 and 142, Constitution of IndiaSupported exceptional refusal to disturb the order in the particular facts despite its legal error. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
Held
- On return for want of jurisdiction and presentation to the proper court, the plaint is treated as fresh and trial proceeds de novo, even if the earlier trial had concluded. Rule 10A obviates repeat summons in the specified circumstances; it confers no discretion to continue the old proceedings comparable to statutory transfer provisions. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21)
- Modern Construction states the correct law. Joginder Tuli reflected peculiar facts and discretionary relief rather than a contrary binding rule; Oriental Insurance v. Tejparas Associates did not state the correct law and was overruled. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 22)
- The exclusive Delhi jurisdiction clause made presentation at Gurgaon improper. The words return the file could not enlarge Order VII Rule 10 jurisdiction into an order continuing the trial. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 13, 14)
- The appellant had not invoked the exclusive-jurisdiction clause at the first opportunity, while pleadings and evidence had since concluded. To do substantial justice in those peculiar circumstances, the Court declined to set aside the continuation order, exercising discretion under Articles 136 and 142 despite finding it legally unsustainable. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Reference answered affirming the de novo-trial rule, but appeal disposed of without setting aside the High Court’s 13 March 2018 order in the exceptional facts.