Territorial jurisdiction is assessed from plaint averments; a disputed bond’s genuineness must await trial.

The plaintiff sued to recover money allegedly due under a promissory confession bond executed by the defendant in connection with a bogyam transaction involving land at Tirukovilur.

The defendant disputed the bond as forged and sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, arguing that the suit belonged before the competent court at Tirukovilur. An earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which also raised territorial jurisdiction, had been dismissed. The trial court dismissed the later application, and the defendant challenged that order in this revision.

1. Whether the plaint should be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground that the Chennai court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

2. Whether the disputed promissory confession bond could be considered, at this stage, in determining territorial jurisdiction.

The Court considered Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC.

For deciding an application concerning return or rejection of a plaint, the court must assess the plaint’s averments; where a document relied on to establish jurisdiction is disputed as forged, its genuineness is a matter for determination on evidence at trial. The judgment cites no precedents and does not identify any further statutory provision as the basis of its reasoning.

The plaint alleged that the promissory confession bond was executed in Chennai on 12 June 2014, thereby pleading a connection to the territorial jurisdiction of the court below.

The defendant both denied the bond’s genuineness and, alternatively, contended that it arose from a bogyam transaction relating to land at Tirukovilur. Because the document was contested, the Court held that its authenticity could not be finally determined on the return-of-plaint application; the court could act on it for the present purpose of considering jurisdiction, leaving its genuineness to be assessed on evidence at trial.

It directed the trial court to dispose of the 2016 suit within four months of receiving the order and to submit a compliance report. It also clarified that observations made in the interlocutory proceedings or revision would not affect the decision on the merits.