Returning Court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC cannot adjudicate territorial jurisdiction of other competent courts.

The Appellant/Petitioner, a proprietor based in Sangam Vihar, Delhi, filed a commercial suit (CS (COMM) No. 379/2025) for recovery of dues against the Respondents regarding structural fabrication work executed for a studio project in Noida, Uttar Pradesh

The Appellant claimed Delhi jurisdiction on the grounds that purchase orders were issued from Delhi, goods were supplied from Delhi, and payments were received in a bank account at HDFC Bank, Saket

On 07.08.2025, the Trial Court (South-East District, Saket) ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction and further observed that no Court in Delhi had jurisdiction over the transaction

Consequently, the Trial Court rejected the Appellant’s application under Order VII Rule 10A CPC to fix a date for appearance before the South District, Saket, and directed the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on 23.08.2025

1. Whether a Court, upon finding it lacks territorial jurisdiction, has the authority under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to conclusively determine that no other Court within the same state/territory possesses jurisdiction.

2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10A CPC for fixing a date of appearance before another district court.

The Court applied 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

It examined Order VII Rule 10A CPC regarding the procedure for fixed dates of appearance when a plaint is returned

The Court also referenced Section 20 of the CPC concerning the place of suing based on where the defendants reside or the cause of action arises

It upheld the principle that a Court’s inquiry under Rule 10 is limited to its own competence; once it finds it lacks jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate the jurisdiction of other competent courts

The High Court held that the Trial Court exceeded its mandate by declaring that "no Court in Delhi" had jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the judicial inquiry is strictly confined to determining the competence of the specific Court where the suit is filed

However, the Court noted the Appellant's "mischievous conduct" in failing to plead the receipt of payments at the Saket bank account in the original plaint and suppressing the fact that Respondent No. 1 had already sued the Appellant in the South District

Regarding Rule 10A, the Court found the Trial Court’s refusal to fix a date for the South District was practically sound because the existing plaint lacked the necessary averments (source of payment) to establish jurisdiction in that district; the Appellant must amend the pleadings before re-filing

The Court dismissed CM(M) 1936/2025, upholding the return of the plaint without fixing a date for the South District, as the Appellant first needs to amend the pleadings to establish cause of action there. It clarified that the South District Court must determine its own jurisdiction independently if the plaint is presented there