SUPREME COURT FULL BENCH JUDGMENT ON A REFERENCE ARISING OUT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO DIVISION BENCH DECISIONS IN JOGINDER TULI VS. S.L. BHATIA, (1996) 10 SC CK 0017 AND OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. VS. MODERN CONSTRUCTION & CO., (2013) 10 SC CK 0043 WITH REGARD TO QUESTION OF LAW IF A PLAINT IS RETURNED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 10 AND 10A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, FOR PRESENTATION IN THE COURT IN WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED, WHETHER THE SUIT SHALL PROCEED DE NOVO OR WILL IT CONTINUE FROM THE STAGE WHERE IT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AT THE TIME OF RETURNING OF THE PLAINT.

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

M/S. Exl Careers And Another Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited, (2020) 08 SC CK 0001

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court on a reference by a two Judge Bench opining a perceived conflict between two Division Bench decisions in Joginder Tuli vs. S.L. Bhatia, (1996) 10 SC CK 0017 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation  Ltd. vs. Modern Construction & Co., (2013) 10 SC CK 0043 with regard to question of law if a plaint is  returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, whether the suit shall proceed de novo or will it continue from the stage where it was pending before the court at the time of returning of the plaint, held that there is no contradiction in the law as laid down in Modern Construction (supra) pronounced after consideration of the law and precedents requiring reconsideration. The Full Bench was of the view that the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that if the court where the suit is instituted, is of the view that it has no jurisdiction, the plaint is to be returned in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and the plaintiff can present it before the court having competent jurisdiction. In such a factual matrix, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the court having no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and may also seek adjustment of court fee paid in that court. However, after presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded before the court having no competence to try the same.