Introduction

In Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira (Writ Petition No. 375 of 2025), decided on 25 September 2025, the High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes, J.) addressed a recurring procedural quandary in civil practice: when a defendant files an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to return the plaint for want of jurisdiction, and the plaintiff subsequently files an amendment application to cure perceived defects, which application should the trial court decide first?

The writ petition assailed the trial court’s order directing that the plaintiff’s amendment application be decided prior to the defendant’s Order VII Rule 10 application. The High Court quashed that order and articulated a clear approach: trial courts must first examine the plaint as filed to determine whether they inherently lack jurisdiction; they cannot permit amendments that would confer jurisdiction where none existed. At the same time, the court must consider the effect of any proposed amendment, and then decide both applications together.

The underlying suit (Special Civil Suit No. 40/2024/B) was instituted by the respondent/original plaintiff (a chartered accountant) seeking damages for defamation (Rs. 50 lakhs), a public apology, a declaration regarding a Rs. 50 lakh cheque, and recovery of professional dues (Rs. 5,19,390). The defendant/petitioner contended that the dispute, read holistically with the pleaded engagement letters, was a “commercial dispute” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and thus outside the Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court held that a trial court must examine, on a holistic reading of the plaint as originally filed, whether it inherently lacks jurisdiction (subject-matter, forum by statute, or pecuniary) to entertain the suit.
• If the court inherently lacks jurisdiction, it cannot allow an amendment that would confer such jurisdiction; it must return (Order VII Rule 10) or reject (Order VII Rule 11) the plaint, as appropriate.
• Even while undertaking this threshold analysis, the trial court may also look at the proposed amendment to assess whether, if allowed, it would impermissibly convert a barred suit into one within its jurisdiction or whether it has no jurisdictional consequence.
• Accordingly, the impugned order prioritizing the amendment application was set aside. The trial court was directed to consider both the return-of-plaint application (O.7 R.10) and the amendment application together, applying the above approach.
• Specifically as to classification, the High Court directed the trial court to decide whether, on the plaint as filed, the suit was a “commercial suit”; if so, the plaint must be returned to the Commercial Court and no amendment can be permitted to confer jurisdiction.

Background and Procedural Posture

The original suit combined: (a) a defamation claim tied to alleged Instagram publications, (b) a request for a public apology and retraction, (c) a declaration that a Rs. 50 lakh cheque favouring Hospitality AQ Gastronomy Ventures was not against a legally enforceable debt and should be returned, and (d) a money claim for Rs. 5,19,390 as professional fees. The plaint’s valuation paragraph originally stated a single valuation of Rs. 50 lakhs with maximum court fees paid.

The defendant promptly filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC arguing that the plaint’s averments themselves disclosed commercial transactions under written engagement letters, bringing the matter within the Commercial Courts Act and therefore outside the Civil Judge (Junior Division)’s jurisdiction. The plaintiff then applied to amend the valuation clause by allocating different valuations relief-wise (still valuing the defamation and cheque-related declarations at Rs. 50 lakhs each, assigning nominal value for apology, and Rs. 5,19,390 for fees).

The trial court elected to decide the amendment application first, postponing the O.7 R.10 application. This sequencing was the subject of the writ petition.

Key Issues

• Whether a trial court must first determine its jurisdiction based on the plaint as filed before entertaining a plaintiff’s amendment application.
• Whether a court that inherently lacks jurisdiction can permit amendments to “cure” or create jurisdiction.
• How to approach mixed claims (e.g., defamation plus contract/fees and cheque declaration) when a commercial dimension is pleaded on the face of the plaint.

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Hsil Limited v. Imperial Ceramic & Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7185:

  The High Court quoted extensively from HSIL, endorsing its core holdings:

  • Where the plaint as it exists does not disclose that the court has jurisdiction (territorial, pecuniary, or subject-matter), the court’s only option is to return/reject the plaint; it cannot even entertain an amendment that would vest jurisdiction.
  • This principle flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791, holding that orders by courts lacking jurisdiction are a nullity and that neither waiver nor acquiescence can confer jurisdiction.

  The Bombay High Court (Goa) expressly agreed with HSIL’s approach and integrated it into its own framework for sequencing and jurisdictional scrutiny.

• M/s. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP v. M/s. Gregory & Nicholas, W.P. No. 237/2025 (F), Bombay High Court at Goa, 27.06.2025:

  The Court referenced its recent judgment reconciling the interplay between O.7 R.10/11 applications and amendment applications. Vivienda, read with HSIL, reiterates that a court cannot acquire jurisdiction by permitting amendments where the original plaint failed to invoke it.

• Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791:

  Even though cited via HSIL, the governing principles are central here: lack of jurisdiction is incurable by consent, waiver, or pleading devices; orders passed without jurisdiction are coram non judice and non est. This doctrinal backbone underpins the High Court’s refusal to prioritize amendments designed to clothe an incompetent court with power it does not have.

• Gaganmal Ramchand v. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, AIR 1950 Bom 345:

  Distinguished. That case concerned an amendment sought when documents subsequently came to hand, completing the cause of action. The High Court clarified that such a scenario—where amendments reflect subsequent events completing the claim—is not analogous to amendments aimed at conferring jurisdiction where it was inherently absent at the outset.

• Devichand Ratanchand Solanki & Anr. v. Premshankar Shivram Bajpayi, 1994 Mh.L.J. 1001:

  Also distinguished. The court noted that in Devichand, only after amendments were allowed were jurisdictional objections to be taken up—on those facts. That pathway does not govern where the threshold question is inherent lack of jurisdiction apparent from the plaint as filed.

• Other Delhi decisions mentioned in HSIL’s context (e.g., Hans Raj Kalra v. Kishan Lal Kalra, ILR (1976) II Delhi 745; Anil Goel v. Sardari Lal, (1998) 75 DLT 641) reinforce the theme that jurisdiction cannot be remodeled by amendment when initially absent.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning proceeds in carefully staged steps:

• Holistic examination of the plaint as filed: The court must first read the plaint in its entirety as it stood at the time of filing to determine whether jurisdiction is lacking by:
  • Statutory exclusivity or bar (e.g., Commercial Courts Act allocating commercial disputes to designated forums),
  • Pecuniary limits, or
  • Subject-matter constraints.
• No jurisdiction by amendment: If on this initial reading the court inherently lacks jurisdiction, it cannot permit an amendment to manufacture jurisdiction that was missing at inception. This rule applies across subject-matter and pecuniary limitations alike. The judgment expressly warns against amendments aimed at lowering valuation to slip into pecuniary limits or recharacterizing the nature of the dispute (e.g., from commercial to non-commercial) to fit a forum.
• Simultaneous consideration, not serial prioritization: The trial court erred in announcing that it would first consider whether the amendment could bring the suit within pecuniary jurisdiction and only then examine the O.7 R.10 application. The proper approach is to consider both applications together: examine the original plaint’s jurisdictional footing while also assessing whether the proposed amendment (if allowed) would have any legitimate impact on jurisdiction. If the court lacked jurisdiction at the threshold, it must return/reject the plaint and decline the amendment.
• Application to the case at hand: The trial court must determine whether the suit, on the plaint as filed, is a “commercial suit” in substance. If yes, the plaint must be returned to the appropriate Commercial Court; the amendment cannot be granted in that forum. If the proposed amendment has no bearing on jurisdiction, the court can then reject the O.7 R.10 application and take up the amendment on its own merits.

C. The Impact and Reach of the Ruling

• Clarified sequencing doctrine in Goa: The judgment establishes binding guidance for trial courts in Goa: jurisdictional scrutiny comes first, not the plaintiff’s amendment request, where the court’s competence is in doubt. Both applications must be decided together, with jurisdictional competence as the threshold question.
• Constraints on forum-shopping and tactical amendments: Plaintiffs cannot rescue an incorrectly instituted suit by opportunistic pleading amendments designed to create jurisdiction in a court that never had it. This discourages tactical delays and reduces wasted judicial effort.
• Commercial Courts Act enforcement: The ruling strengthens the integrity of the Commercial Courts regime by requiring trial courts to vigilantly screen out commercial disputes from regular civil courts at the earliest stage, based on the plaint as filed.
• Pecuniary jurisdiction integrity: The judgment’s observations on pecuniary limits are significant: a court that lacks pecuniary jurisdiction cannot reduce the suit’s value through amendment to clothe itself with competence. This ensures transparent forum allocation based on claims as initially presented.
• Guidance on mixed claims: In suits blending tort (defamation) with contract or commercial reliefs (fees, cheque-related declarations), courts must identify the suit’s pith and substance as it emerges from the plaint and the nature of reliefs, to determine the correct forum.
• Procedural economy: By insisting on threshold jurisdictional screening and rejecting serial adjudication that privileges amendments first, the court promotes docket efficiency and reduces interlocutory skirmishes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Order VII Rule 10 CPC (Return of plaint): If the court finds that the suit should have been filed in a different court (e.g., due to territorial, pecuniary, or subject-matter allocation by statute), it returns the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The suit is not adjudicated on merits.
• Order VII Rule 11 CPC (Rejection of plaint): The court rejects the plaint for specific defects (e.g., failure to disclose cause of action, barred by law, insufficient court fees with failure to cure). Rejection ends the suit as filed, subject to fresh filing where permissible.
• “Inherent lack of jurisdiction”: A situation where, by law, the court never had the power to hear the case—either because a statute confers exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere (e.g., Commercial Courts Act), or because the claim exceeds the court’s pecuniary limits. Orders passed in such cases are void (coram non judice).
• Amendment of pleadings (Order VI Rule 17 CPC): Pleadings can be amended to clarify issues, add particulars, or reflect subsequent developments. But amendments cannot be used to confer jurisdiction where none existed at the outset, nor to defeat statutory bars.
• Commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Disputes arising from ordinary transactions of merchants and traders—including service contracts and related monetary claims—are commercial and must be tried by designated Commercial Courts/Divisions if they meet the statutory definitions and thresholds.
• Return vs. Rejection of plaint:
  • Return sends the plaint to the correct forum without deciding its merits.
  • Rejection terminates the suit in its present form because of legal defects in the plaint itself.

Operational Test and Guidance for Trial Courts

The judgment effectively supplies a decision-making algorithm:

1. Read the plaint as originally filed in a holistic manner.
2. Ask: Does the court inherently lack jurisdiction (subject-matter allocation by statute, pecuniary cap, or other statutory bar)?
3. If yes, decline to entertain amendment and return/reject the plaint under O.7 R.10/11 CPC as appropriate.
4. If no, consider the amendment application and the O.7 R.10 application together:
   • Assess whether the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit in a way that impermissibly manufactures jurisdiction.
   • If the amendment has no bearing on jurisdiction, deny the O.7 R.10 plea and proceed to decide the amendment on its merits.
5. Record clear reasons on classification (e.g., whether the suit is a commercial dispute) and on the jurisdictional effect (or lack thereof) of the proposed amendment.

Practical Takeaways for Litigants and Counsel

• For defendants: Raise O.7 R.10/11 jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity and insist on threshold adjudication based on the plaint as filed. Highlight statutory allocations (e.g., Commercial Courts Act) and pecuniary limits.
• For plaintiffs: Draft the plaint with careful attention to forum competence. Do not rely on post-filing amendments to confer jurisdiction. If the suit’s pith and substance is commercial, file in the Commercial Court from the outset.
• On valuation: Attempts to revalue claims to fall within a court’s pecuniary limits are impermissible if the court lacked jurisdiction at inception.
• On mixed causes: Where tort claims (e.g., defamation) are intertwined with commercial engagements and monetary reliefs, anticipate that courts will examine substance over form in allocating forum.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court (Goa) in Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira crystallizes a principled, pragmatic rule: jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry anchored to the plaint as filed; a court that lacks jurisdiction cannot permit amendments to create it. Trial courts must consider return-of-plaint and amendment applications together, ensuring that jurisdictional competence is determined first in substance. By aligning with the Delhi High Court’s HSIL doctrine and reaffirming the Supreme Court’s non-negotiable limits on jurisdiction in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi, the ruling strengthens forum integrity, deters tactical pleading, and streamlines civil procedure—particularly in the context of the Commercial Courts Act. Its guidance will shape how mixed and multi-relief suits are filed and defended across Goa’s civil courts.

Case Metadata

• Case: Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira
• Court: High Court of Bombay at Goa
• Coram: Valmiki Menezes, J.
• Date: 25 September 2025
• Procedural posture: Writ petition challenging trial court’s sequencing order on O.7 R.10 and amendment applications
• Disposition: Writ allowed; trial court’s order set aside; directed to decide both applications simultaneously with jurisdiction-first approach