Wrong citation of a procedural provision cannot invalidate an application when the court possesses jurisdiction.

The petitioners, original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 2022 pending before the Principal Civil Judge, Nizar, filed an application below Exhibit 31 seeking to join additional parties as co-plaintiffs and to make consequential amendments.

The application was inadvertently filed under Order I Rule 13 CPC instead of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

The Trial Court rejected the application solely because the provision invoked did not apply to the reliefs sought, without examining the application on merits.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that an application should not be rejected merely because an incorrect statutory provision was cited.

Whether an application seeking addition of parties as co-plaintiffs could be rejected solely because it was incorrectly filed under Order I Rule 13 instead of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC?

Whether the Trial Court was required to consider and decide the application on its merits by exercising the jurisdiction available under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC?

The Court applied the principle that mere citation of a wrong or incorrect statutory provision does not invalidate an application or order where the court otherwise possesses jurisdiction and the power to grant the relief.

Relying on Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja (Dead) by LRs v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah, (2019) 9 SCC 533, the Court reiterated that an application filed under an incorrect provision may nevertheless be considered under the correct provision.

It also relied on P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173, and N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278, for the rule that wrong citation or non-citation of the source of power does not vitiate an exercise of jurisdiction when that power exists in law.

The relevant procedural provision was Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which empowers the court to add necessary or proper parties.

The High Court found that the petitioners’ substantive request was for impleadment or addition of parties as co-plaintiffs, a relief falling for consideration under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

Although Order I Rule 13 had been mistakenly cited, the Trial Court possessed jurisdiction to examine the application under the correct provision.

By rejecting the application solely on the technical ground of incorrect statutory citation, without adjudicating its merits, the Trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.

The High Court therefore held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable and that the application had to be restored for determination after hearing all concerned parties.

The High Court quashed and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 15 July 2026 rejecting the Exhibit 31 application and restored that application to its original file.

The Trial Court was directed to hear all concerned parties and decide the application in accordance with law, treating it as an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, with liberty to permit formal correction of the provision if necessary.

Since the order was passed without hearing the respondents, they were granted liberty to seek recall or modification within one month of receiving the order.