Akshay Quenim vs. Royce Savio Pereira

Held

The Court held that it is not in every case that an amendment application must be considered before an application for return or rejection of the plaint. The correct approach is to first examine the plaint as it stood when filed to determine if the Court inherently lacked jurisdiction. If the Court lacks jurisdiction, it should not entertain an amendment application that seeks to confer jurisdiction. The Court agreed with the Delhi High Court's decision in HSIL Limited, stating that if the plaint as existing does not disclose territorial jurisdiction, the Court must return or reject the plaint without considering the amendment. However, the Court also noted that while examining the original plaint, the Trial Court may consider the effect of the proposed amendment to see if it would confer jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to consider both applications simultaneously, assessing the plaint as originally filed and the effect of the amendment. If the suit is determined to be commercial, the plaint should be returned to the appropriate Commercial Court. If the amendment has no effect on jurisdiction, the Court should proceed to consider the amendment application on its merits.

Facts

The Petitioner, Mr. Akshay Quenim, filed a Special Civil Suit No. 40/2024/B against the Respondent, Mr. Royce Savio Pereira. The suit sought compensation for loss of reputation, a public apology, retraction of allegations, declaration regarding a cheque, and recovery of professional dues amounting to Rs. 5,19,390/- including GST. The plaint was valued at Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for the return of the plaint, arguing that the suit pertained to a commercial transaction and the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed an amendment application to alter the valuation clause, splitting the valuation for each relief sought. The Trial Court, by an impugned order dated 06.06.2025, decided to hear the amendment application first.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court, lacking inherent jurisdiction to try the suit as originally filed, should have first addressed the application for the return of the plaint (Order 7 Rule 10 CPC) before considering the application for amendment of the plaint (Exhibit D-13)? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the Trial Court should have first determined if it inherently lacked jurisdiction. They argued that the Court should examine the amendment application to see if it would confer jurisdiction where none existed, effectively filling a lacuna in the original plaint. The Petitioner relied on M/s. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP v. M/s. Gregory & Nicholas and HSIL Limited v. Imperial Ceramic and Anr. Respondent's arguments: The Respondent argued that it is only after an amendment application is allowed that the Court should examine whether the plaint needs to be returned or rejected. They contended that the amendment sought was only to split the valuation clause and not to incorporate a new cause of action, and that it would not materially affect the Court's jurisdiction as the suit was primarily for damages due to defamation. The Respondent relied on Gaganmal Ramchand v. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and Devichand Ratanchand Solanki and Anr. v. Premshankar Shivram Bajpayi.