Skip to content


Hanamanthappa and Another Vs. Chandrashekharappa and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberSpl. Leave Petn. (C) No. 1535 of 1997
Judge
Reported inAIR1997SC1307; JT1997(2)SC528; (1997)2MLJ107(SC); 1997(2)SCALE59; (1997)9SCC688; [1997]1SCR846; 1997(1)LC808(SC)
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rule 17, Rule 10A;
AppellantHanamanthappa and Another
RespondentChandrashekharappa and Others
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.96 of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No.1650 of 1996
Excerpt:
.....permissible deductions and thereafter to compute the excise on an ad valorem basis by applying the tariff rate to the assessable value. [865d] - at best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law......to the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. in substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the high court. therefore, it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the court of district munsiff, navalgund. it is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under order vi, rule 17, c. p. c. at best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law. under those circumstances, we do not think that (here is any error of law committed by the high court in giving the above direction.4. the special.....
Judgment:

1. This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, made in C.R.P. No. 1650/96 on July 9, 1996:

2. Admittedly, the respondents filed O.S. No. 158/94, in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. On grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. Accordingly, after making necessary amendment to the plaint the respondents represented the suit, which came to be numbered as O. S. No. 10/91, in Civil Court at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without seeking permission for amendment of the plaint as required under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. The High Court dismissed the petition.

3. It is contended by Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that since the petition had been filed with amended averments in the plaint, necessarily it must be treated to be a fresh plaint and not one after representation to the proper Court. We find no force in the contention. The object of Order 7, Rule 10A is that the plaintiff, on return of the plaint, can either challenge in an appellate forum or represent to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In substance, it is a suit filed afresh subject to the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of the Court fee as had rightly been pointed out by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff made averments which did not find place in the original plaint presented before the Court of District Munsiff, Navalgund. It is not always necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law. Under those circumstances, we do not think that (here is any error of law committed by the High Court in giving the above direction.

4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //