Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Judgment was passed on 5th August 2020 by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in a plea that had been placed before the bench on a reference by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court opining a perceived conflict between two Division bench decisions in Joginder Tuli vs SL. Bhatia and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Modern Construction and Co. The question that arose before the court from this conflict was whether a plaint returned under Order 7, rule 10 and 10A of the code of Civil Procedure 1908 for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, shall proceed De Novo or continue from the stage where it was pending in the previous court.
When this question of law had appeared before a two-judge bench last year, the court had observed that the judgment in the Modern Construction case needed reconsideration. The bench had further stated that unless a party can prove that it had been actually prejudiced by some proceedings before the court that does not have jurisdiction, it would not be in the larger interests to start the proceedings, De Novo.
The same question of law arose before the present bench from a suit of recovery filed against the appellant before the civil judge of Gurgaon that was returned because the court at Gurgaon lacked territorial jurisdiction because of the exclusion clause in the franchise agreement between the parties. Only High Court of Delhi had the jurisdiction according to the agreement and when this suit reached the High Court, the court held that the suit will proceed from the stage at which it was left pending and not De Novo. Aggrieved by this the appellant approached the Supreme Court with the present appeal.
The Supreme Court's judgment in the present appeal stated that there was no conflict between the two judgments as there is no discussion of law in the Joginder Tuli case and only the Modern Construction case lays down the correct law. The court in its further observation clearly stated that a suit in a new court has to proceed with De Novo on the return of plaint and this marked the end of the issue.
86540
103860
630
114
59824