Does a suit start afresh on the return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10, 10A CPC? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that if a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in a court where it should have been instituted, the proceedings in the suit shall take place de novo (M/S EXL Careers & Anr v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited)..Order VII Rule 10 and 10A deal with procedure surrounding return of plaint in a court where the suit should have been instituted..The three-judge Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee was answering a reference made to it on account of conflicting views on the issue. .In October last year, a Division Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose had referred the question to a larger Bench while making an observation that unless prejudice can be proven by a party on account of the suit being heard by a court not having jurisdiction, proceedings should not start de novo..Should trial start afresh upon return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC? Larger Bench of Supreme Court to decide.While answering the reference, however, the three-Judge Bench said that the two judgments in the cases Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Modern Construction and Joginder Tuli v. SL Bhatia were not in conflict with each other. The Bench thus ruled that the ONGC judgment did not need reconsideration.In the ONGC judgment, it was held that when a plaint is returned before a court of competent jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10, it has to be treated as a fresh plaint and the trial has to take place de novo, even if the trial stood concluded before a court lacking jurisdiction. .The Court in the instant judgment, thus, said:.“We find no contradiction in the law as laid down in Modern Construction (supra) pronounced after consideration of the law and precedents requiring reconsideration in view of any conflict with Joginder Tuli (supra). Modern Construction (supra) lays down the correct law. We answer the reference accordingly. “.The Court elaborated further that the language used in Order VII Rule 10 and 10A is in contrast with the language used in Sections 24(2) and 25(3), which deal with transfer and withdrawal of suits. When a suit is transferred from one competent court to another, the discretion lies with the court to either start the proceedings afresh or proceed from where the previous court left off..However, when it comes presentation of a plaint before a competent court after being returned from a court lacking jurisdiction, the language makes it amply clear that the suit has to be tried de novo, the three-judge Bench held.."The statutory scheme now becomes clear. In cases dealing with transfer of proceedings from a Court having jurisdiction to another Court, the discretion vested in the Court by Sections 24(2) and 25(3) either to retry the proceedings or proceed from the point at which such proceeding was transferred or withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order VII Rule 10 read with Rule 10-A where no such discretion is given and the proceeding has to commence de novo.”.Therefore, the Court concluded that the ONGC judgment did not need reconsideration and the law remains clear that when a plaint is presented before a court of competent jurisdiction after being returned under Order VII Rule 10 or 10A, proceedings have to commence afresh..Read Judgment:.Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.