Rejection of Plaint due to Lack of Jurisdiction

Rejection of a plaint is a critical argument often raised by the defense under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). This ground is frequently invoked in written statements, with the primary prayer often being the rejection of the plaint. While seemingly straightforward, the procedural intricacies involved are essential to understand in the context of litigation.

Jurisdictional Grounds for Rejection of Plaint

A lack of jurisdiction is a valid ground for the rejection of a plaint. However, questions arise about the implications of such a rejection. It is commonly assumed that a fresh suit will be filed in a court with proper jurisdiction. But what about the orders issued by the court lacking jurisdiction? Even if a judgment passed by a court is erroneous, it is binding. So, does the same apply to interim orders issued by a court lacking jurisdiction?

Case Law Analysis

1. Sri. K.Somanath Nayak vs Sri. D.Veerendra Heggade (5 May 2022, Karnataka High Court)

   The Karnataka High Court addressed interim orders in cases where a court's jurisdiction is questioned. The court ruled that while an objection to jurisdiction must be resolved promptly, the court is not instantly disabled from passing interim orders. Such orders are effective until the court decides it lacks jurisdiction. These orders are subject to modification or vacating once the court determines it has no jurisdiction. For example, if a party is dispossessed from the property by a receiver, the court must restore the party to their original position if it later determines it lacks jurisdiction. However, violations of these interim orders before the jurisdictional decision can still be punished. The relevant para of the judgment states:

   "…where an objection to jurisdiction of a civil court is raised to entertain a suit and to pass any interim orders therein, the Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance but that does not mean that pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction, the Court has no jurisdiction to pass interim orders as may be called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. A mere objection to jurisdiction does not instantly disable the court from passing any interim orders. It can yet pass appropriate orders. At the same time, it should also decide the question of jurisdiction at the earliest possible time. The interim orders so passed are orders within jurisdiction when passed and effective till the court decides that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These interim orders undoubtedly come to an end with the decision that this Court had no jurisdiction. It is open to the court to modify these orders while holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Indeed, in certain situations, it would be its duty to modify such orders or make appropriate directions. For example, take a case where a party has been dispossessed from the suit property by appointing a receiver or otherwise; in such a case, the court should, while holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, must put back the party in the position he was on the date of suit. But this power or obligation has nothing to do with the proposition that while in force, these orders have to be obeyed and their violation can be punished even after the question of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff provided the violation is committed before the decision of the court on the question of Jurisdiction."

2. Suresh Vijayavargiya vs Ashok Kumar (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

   The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that interim orders issued by a court lacking jurisdiction would stand vacated following the rejection of the plaint. The matter was remanded to the appropriate trial court to proceed according to the law.

3. M/S Exl Careers and Another vs Frankfinn Aviation Service Private Limited (Supreme Court)

   The Supreme Court elaborated on the consequences of rejecting a plaint, stating that the matter should be heard de novo, or from the beginning, after the plaint's rejection. This ruling underscores that a fresh start is necessary when a plaint is rejected due to jurisdictional issues.

Conclusion

The procedural law surrounding the rejection of a plaint and subsequent orders is complex and varies based on the court's findings on jurisdiction. Interim orders passed by a court lacking jurisdiction are not permanently binding and can be vacated or modified. Understanding these nuances is crucial for navigating litigation effectively and ensuring compliance with jurisdictional requirements. Further development in this area will be updated in upcoming blogs.