Plaint Disclosing Cause of Action Must Be Returned for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction, Not Rejected

The appellant filed a suit (Money Suit No. 6 of 2020) for damages on the ground of defamation in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Uluberia.

The respondents moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The trial Judge dismissed the suit (deemed decree) on the primary ground that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed, admitting the lack of territorial jurisdiction but contending that the plaint should have been returned rather than rejected.

1. Whether the trial court was correct in rejecting the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction instead of returning it under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.

2. Whether the suit was liable for rejection at the threshold stage on the ground of non-disclosure of a cause of action.

Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, which mandates the return of a plaint to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted if the initial court lacks jurisdiction.

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the rejection of plaints, noting the distinction between a failure to "disclose" a cause of action versus the "existence" or "quality" of a cause of action.

The principle that the caption of an application does not prevent a court from moulding prayers to grant appropriate relief under the law.

The High Court found that while the trial court correctly determined it lacked territorial jurisdiction, the appropriate procedural remedy was to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 rather than rejecting it outright.

Regarding the respondents' argument that no cause of action was disclosed, the Court held that Paragraph 14 of the plaint sufficiently disclosed a bundle of facts for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11.

The Court emphasized that a "qualitative assessment" of the cause of action is a matter for trial, not for a summary rejection stage.

Since the ground of non-disclosure was not raised in the original application or before the trial Judge, the Court ruled it could not be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the trial court's order dated July 1, 2025, holding that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff/appellant for presentation before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction, rather than being rejected.

No order as to costs was made.