Bombay High Court Overturns Trial Court's Decision on Amendment and Jurisdiction in Civil Suit
The High Court directs simultaneous consideration of amendment and jurisdiction applications in a suit involving defamation and commercial claims.
In a significant legal development, the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench), presided by Justice Valmiki Menezes, has quashed a decision by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Merces, regarding the procedural handling of a civil suit filed by Mr. Akshay Quenim against Mr. Royce Savio Pereira. The case revolves around allegations of defamation and financial claims, including a disputed cheque transaction valued at Rs.50,00,000.
The pivotal issue addressed by the High Court was whether the Trial Court should have first decided on the amendment application filed by the Plaintiff before considering the Defendant's application for return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The original suit was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction, asserting it was inherently a commercial matter falling under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Justice Menezes emphasized the necessity for the Trial Court to evaluate the plaint as originally filed to determine if it inherently lacked jurisdiction. The High Court criticized the Trial Court's approach, which prioritized the amendment application, potentially altering the suit's nature and jurisdictional standing, without first resolving the fundamental jurisdictional question.
The High Court clarified that while amendments can adjust the valuation or nature of claims, they should not be used to retrospectively confer jurisdiction that a Court inherently lacks. The correct procedure, as delineated by the High Court, involves the simultaneous consideration of both the amendment application and the jurisdictional objection. This ensures a comprehensive understanding of whether the suit should be heard by the Trial Court or returned for presentation before a competent forum.
In light of these observations, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order dated June 6, 2025. It directed the Trial Court to reassess both applications concurrently, taking into account the original plaint and the proposed amendments. The Trial Court must determine whether the suit qualifies as a commercial transaction requiring adjudication by a Commercial Court, thus lacking the jurisdiction to entertain the amendment application.
This judgment reinforces the principle that jurisdictional competence cannot be altered through procedural amendments in civil litigation, preserving the integrity of legal proceedings and ensuring adherence to statutory mandates.
Bottom Line:
Amendment application and application for return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC must be considered simultaneously by the Trial Court to determine jurisdiction and effect of amendment.
Statutory provision(s): Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 10, Order 7 Rule 11; Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Mr. Akshay Quenim v. Mr. Royce Savio Pereira, (Bombay)(Goa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2787178
