Can Plaint Be Returned For Lack Of Pecuniary Jurisdiction Without Following Order VII Rules 10, 10A CPC? Karnataka HC Answers

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition filed by one Yellawwa, mother of one late Army officer Anand and set aside the order passed by the trial court rejecting her application seeking to restrain the authorities including the bank from releasing any amount to her daughter-in-law out of the account maintained by them and disbursing any amount from dues available out of the account of the deceased.

The bench said:

"No Court can return the plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction without following the requirements of Rule 10 of Order VII of CPC which mandates the following of the procedure prescribed under Rule 10A of Order VII of CPC."

Case Details:

The petitioner filed a suit seeking certain relief against the defendants. An application was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking injunction restraining the bank from releasing any amount to the wife of the deceased army personnel. However, the trial Court vide its order dated 28.11.2016 rejected it on the ground that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction.

Findings:

The bench said it is a "peculiar case" where an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been rejected on the ground that the Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. While doing so, no further date has been passed, it added.

Referring to Rule 10 and 10A of Order VII the bench said:

"Sub-Rule 10A of Order VII of CPC makes it clear that in any suit after the defendant has appeared, the Court is of the opinion that the plaint should be returned, it shall before doing so, intimate the said decision to the plaintiff and when intimated the said decision, the plaintiff could make an application to the Court specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return, praying for the Court to fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the said Court, as also requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to the defendant."

It added: "In the event of the application not having been made under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10A of Order VII of CPC the Court while returning the plaint the Court shall fix a date for appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is proposed to be presented and give to the plaintiff and defendant notice of such date for appearance."

The bench noted the trial court rejected the deceased army man's mother's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on the ground that no pecuniary jurisdiction exists with it. It added:

"Neither the Court has returned the plaint nor has it followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 10 nor Rule 10A of Order VII of the CPC. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not stand the test of law and it is contrary to the applicable law".

Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the court allowed the IA filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and restrained the defendant authorities from disbursing any amounts in excess of 50% of the amount falling to the share of the deceased till disposal of the suit.

Further, it said: "Since the Trial Court is of the opinion that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction, the matter is remanded to the Trial Court to comply with the requirements of Rule 10 and 10A of order VII of the CPC which shall be so done within a period of 15 days of the receipt of papers by the Trial Court."

Case Title: YELLAWWA v. SAVITRI

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109954 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

Date of Order: 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

Appearance: S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE for petitioner; GURUDEV GACHCHINMATH, ADV. FOR R1; A.P.KAMOJI, ADV. FOR R2; M.B.KANAVI, ADV. FOR R3, R5 AND R6; K.S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order