- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lal Bahadur Singh And Another v. Bagesara And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerned a parcel of land which, prior to the abolition of Zamindari, was a fixed-rate tenancy of the plaintiffs' mother. The plaintiffs claimed to be her sole heirs and, after Zamindari abolition, to have become the Bhumidhars of the land. On 1-12-1946 a registered agreement was executed between the plaintiffs' father and the defendants permitting the defendants to plant trees on the land, with produce and wood to be shared equally.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to pay plaintiffs' share of the produce and sued for Rs. 1,100 and for declarations (that plaintiffs were Bhumidhars and that the revenue entry in defendants' favour was incorrect). Defendants contested the suit on facts and various legal grounds; two principal questions raised were the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and abatement under Section 5, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The trial Court framed eight issues, recorded findings on all, and concluded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction; it dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The lower appellate Court limited its consideration to the question of jurisdiction, also concluded the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court. Both parties filed first appeals from that order.
At the outset of the appeal proceedings before this Court an application for permission to file additional evidence was presented; the Court dismissed that application and ordered the proffered document returned to the defendant-appellant because the document, while relevant on the merits, had no relevance to the jurisdictional question before the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, where the trial Court has recorded findings on all issues (including merits) but ultimately finds it lacks jurisdiction, the proper form of the order is dismissal of the suit or return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
- Whether the lower appellate Court's direction to return the plaint was correct in the circumstances of this case.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs-Appellants (as represented by Sri Sankatha Rai)
- Did not seriously contest the trial Court's merit findings on lack of jurisdiction; confined submissions to defending and justifying the appellate Court's order returning the plaint.
- Relied primarily on the single-judge decision in Gulab v. Jaggan Ram Singh (1983 Rev. Dec. 185 / AIR 1983 All 145) to support return of the plaint when a Court finds it has no jurisdiction.
Defendant-Appellant (as represented by Sri R.N. Singh)
- Argued that where a suit has been heard on merits by the trial Court and all issues have been examined, the Court should dismiss the suit if it finds it lacks jurisdiction rather than return the plaint.
- Relied on Devi Datt Sharma v. Teg Singh (1979 All LJ 1086) and an unreported decision (Sukhraj v. Nageshwar Ram, F.A.F.O No. 483 of 1982) in which the court, having held it lacked jurisdiction, dismissed the suit instead of ordering return of the plaint.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Gulab v. Jaggan Ram Singh, 1983 Rev. Dec. 185 (AIR 1983 All 145) | Pressed in support of the proposition that where a Court finds it has no jurisdiction it must return the plaint rather than dismiss the suit. | The Court noted this authority was relied upon by plaintiffs' counsel but held that the view expressed in that decision "does not appear to be wholly correct" as a categorical rule; the Court declined to apply it as an inflexible rule in all cases. |
| Devi Datt Sharma v. Teg Singh, 1979 All LJ 1086 | Relied upon to support the proposition that if a Court records findings on merits but ultimately finds it lacks jurisdiction, the suit should be dismissed rather than the plaint returned. | The Court considered this decision but distinguished it and the factual context, treating it as an instance where dismissal was held appropriate; the Court did not adopt it as an absolute rule. |
| Sukhraj v. Nageshwar Ram, F.A.F.O No. 483 of 1982 (unreported) | Used similarly by the defendants to support dismissal where the trial has considered merits but jurisdiction is later found lacking. | The Court acknowledged reliance on this unreported decision by defendants' counsel but did not treat it as establishing a mandatory rule opposite to the Court's ultimate view of judicial discretion. |
| Athmanath Swami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338 | Held that when a Court has no jurisdiction over subject-matter it cannot decide questions on merits and upon finding no jurisdiction must return the plaint. | The Court accepted the principle that a court lacking jurisdiction should not decide merits, but interpreted Devasthanam as not forbidding dismissal in all circumstances; it concluded Devasthanam does not mandate return of the plaint in every case. |
| Smt. Ananti v. Chhannu, AIR 1930 All 193 (Full Bench) | Set out broad principles indicating that if a plaintiff's pleadings do not justify relief from the court chosen, the suit will be dismissed and there will be no question of returning the plaint; also discussed the risk of defendants ousting jurisdiction by mere plea. | The Court relied on and applied the Full Bench's broad principles to hold that whether to dismiss or return the plaint depends on facts of each case and that the trial/appellate Court has discretion; applying those principles the Court found the lower appellate Court's direction to return the plaint was justified here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in a stepwise manner:
- Preliminary application: The Court first determined that the application to file additional evidence on appeal should be dismissed because the document, although potentially relevant on merits, had no bearing on the appeals which involved only the question of jurisdiction; the document was ordered returned to the defendant-appellant.
- Legal framing: The Court reviewed the plaintiffs' allegations and the procedural history — trial Court's framing of eight issues, findings on all, and conclusion of lack of jurisdiction leading to dismissal; the lower appellate Court considered only jurisdiction and ordered return of the plaint.
- Statutory provisions and procedural options: The Court analysed Order 7, Rule 10 and Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, explaining that a Civil Court can order return of the plaint where on the face of the plaint it is incompetent to entertain (territorial, pecuniary or inherent jurisdiction) and can reject under Rule 11 where barred by statute. The Court explained two approaches when jurisdiction is put in issue by the defendant — (a) decide jurisdiction as a preliminary issue (restricting inquiry to that question), or (b) try all issues including merits and then decide; if the latter course is taken, the Court may dispose of the suit either on merits or on jurisdiction.
- Precedential analysis: The Court considered relevant authorities. It noted the Devasthanam principle that a court which lacks jurisdiction should not decide merits and should return the plaint, but held that Devasthanam did not go so far as to preclude dismissal in every case. The Court examined the single-judge decisions relied upon by the parties and the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ananti v. Chhannu, concluding that the Full Bench had laid down broad principles permitting case-by-case discretion.
- Discretion explained and applied: The Court concluded that when jurisdiction depends on merits the Court has a discretion — it may dismiss the suit after recording lack of jurisdiction or may, in appropriate cases, direct return of the plaint. It rejected an absolute rule either way. Applying these principles to the facts before it, the Court held that the lower appellate Court's order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court was "eminently justified" and that it was not incumbent on the lower Court to dismiss the suit.
- Subsequent consolidation decision: After hearing arguments, defendants disclosed that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by decision dated 26-7-1983, had finally determined rights in favour of defendants (that defendants were the Sirdars). Defendants argued this made return of the plaint pointless. The Court observed plaintiffs intended to challenge that decision and held that the consolidation decision did not affect the Court's earlier conclusion: if the consolidation decision became final and binding, then, after return of the plaint, plaintiffs' suit in the revenue court would not be maintainable; accordingly the application regarding this development was disposed of.
- Final outcome: On the foregoing analysis the Court concluded both appeals fail and are dismissed; parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Holding and Implications
Core Holding: Both appeals are dismissed.
The Court's specific directives and immediate consequences (as stated in the opinion) are:
- The application for permission to file additional evidence in the appeal is dismissed and the proffered document is ordered returned to the defendant-appellant.
- The lower appellate Court's order directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court (after recording that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction) was upheld as justified in the facts of this case.
- The Court affirmed that when a court finds it lacks jurisdiction it should not decide merits; however, this does not mandate a uniform rule that the plaint must always be returned — where jurisdiction depends on merits the court has discretion to dismiss or to return the plaint depending on the facts. Thus no categorical new rule was laid down; the decision applies the established principle of case-by-case discretion as informed by Smt. Ananti and Devasthanam.
- On an ancillary point, the Court observed that if the Deputy Director of Consolidation's decision becomes final and binding, plaintiffs' revenue remedy would be foreclosed and the return of the plaint would yield no maintainable suit in that forum.
- Costs: Each party was directed to bear their own costs in both appeals.
No broader or novel doctrine beyond the exercise of judicial discretion in choosing between dismissal and return of the plaint was established; the Court applied existing authorities and concluded the appellate Court's return order was appropriate on the particular facts.
1. At the very outset, I may dispose of an application for permission to file additional evidence in appeal. The document which is sought to be brought on record may be relevant on the merits of the controversy but has no relevance for the decision of the appeals before me which only involve question of jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed and the document be returned to the defendant-appellant.
2. According to the plaintiffs' allegations, the land in dispute was fixed rate tenancy of their mother prior to the abolition of Zamindari. On her death, the plaintiffs became her sole heirs. On 1-12-1946, a registered agreement was executed between the plaintiffs' father and the defendants according to which the defendants were permitted to plant some trees over the land and the produce and the wood thereof was to be shared amongst them equally. After the Zamindari abolition, the plaintiffs claimed to have become Bhumidhars of the land. As the defendants had failed to pay plaintiffs' share in the produce, a decree for Rupees 1,100/- and a declaration that they were the Bhumidhars of the land and that revenue entry in defendants' favour was incorrect were prayed for in the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants on facts as well as on various legal grounds but two main questions raised were about jurisdiction of Civil Court and abatement of the suit in view of Section 5, U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act. The trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and recorded findings on all of them. It also came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of this finding, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal the lower appellate Court did not enter into discussion on any other issue and merely decided the issue of jurisdiction. It too came to the conclusion that the suit was not triable by the Civil Court. Accordingly it directed return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Against this decision, both the parties have felt aggrieved and have filed these first appeals from order.
3. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants, has, very rightly, not seriously urged on the merits of the finding that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He has only confined his submissions to defend and justify the order passed by the lower appellate Court and for this he has placed reliance on a single Judge decision of this Court in Gulab v. Jaggan Ram Singh, 1983 Rev. Dec. 185 : (AIR 1983 ALL 145). On the other hand, Sri R.N Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, has urged that where any suit had been heard on merits by the trial Court and all the issues had been thrashed out, the Court cannot direct return of the plaint and the only course open to it then was to dismiss the suit even if it finds that it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit. He assailed the correctness of the order under appeal on this ground. He relies upon another single Judge decision of this Court in Devi Datt Sharma v. Teg Singh, 1979 All LJ 1086 and an unreported decision by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in F.A.F.O No. 483 of 1982 Sukhraj v. Nageshwar Ram decided on 11-8-1982. In both these cases having held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction the suit itself was dismissed instead of ordering return of the plaint.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Ordinarily it is for the plaintiff in each case to choose his own forum for filing the suit. In doing so he must allege such material facts as will, on proof thereof, enable the Court to sustain it. If on the basis of those allegations, a suit can prima facie be maintained in the Civil Court, the Court will proceed further with such a plaint and give an opportunity to the defendant to contest it. If, however, on the basis of the evidence led before it, the Court ultimately finds that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving essential jurisdictional facts, it would proceed to decide the controversy on merits. If, on the contrary, the Court finds that plaintiffs allegations were not true and the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court, it would normally dismiss the same.
5. A perusal of the provisions of Civil P.C would show that under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C, the Civil Court can order return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court at any stage if, on the face of plaint allegations, it finds that it was not competent to entertain the same by reason of limitation of its territorial, pecuniary or inherent jurisdiction. Similarly, where any suit cannot be entertained due to a bar created under any statute, the Court may likewise reject the plaint in view of any of the contingencies mentioned in Rule 11. Even in a contested suit, if the defendant raises the plea of jurisdiction, the Court has two options before it; it may either frame a preliminary issue on the question if that matter can be determined on plaint allegations and dispose it of first or if this cannot be done, it may frame all other issues also and let the parties go to trial and then dispose of the suit including the question of jurisdiction. If the Court chooses the first alternative, it should not enter into the merits and should dispose of the suit only on the question of jurisdiction, either on the basis of averments made in the plaint or after recording evidence of the parties on that issue alone. However, where the second course is adopted and evidence on all issues, including that of jurisdiction, is recorded, the Court may dispose of the suit either on merits or on the question of jurisdiction.
6. The question that has been canvassed before me is about the form of the order that ought to be passed by the Court in such cases. No difficulty arises when an order for return of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C, or of rejection of the plaint under Rule 11, is passed. The real difficulty arises in the other cases. According to Sri R.N Singh, when once the Court enters upon adjudication of all the controversies of merit, the Court has no option left but to finally determine all these issues and if it finds that it has no jurisdiction in the matter, it must dismiss the suit instead of ordering return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Sri Sankatha Rai, on the other hand, contended that once the Civil Court finds that it had no jurisdiction, it must stay its hands at once and should order return of the plaint without further venturing to decide any other issue or to express its opinion on merits. According to the following rule laid down in Athmanath Swami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338:—
“When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint.” He contended that return of the plaint was the only proper course for the Court.
7. This case was referred to by the learned single Judge who decided the case of Devi Datt Sharma (1979 All LJ 1086) (supra) also. According to the learned Judge where the Court, as a matter of caution, records all findings on issues touching merits of the controversy in addition to the issue of jurisdiction, the order has to be of return of plaint because the other findings in such a case have no legal effect. These are recorded only for facilitating the higher Courts and avoidance of a remand in case they come to a different conclusion on the question of jurisdiction. After briefly referring to the above Supreme Court decision, the learned Judge proceeded to consider an earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Ananti v. Chhannu AIR 1930 All 193 and held that if after going to the trial of the suit on all the issues the Court ultimately holds that it had no jurisdiction in the matter, it must result in an order of dismissal of the suit. It may, however, be mentioned here that in Smt. Ananti's case, the controversy was raised in an altogether different manner and the facts were also quite different. There a suit had been filed in the Civil Court and after the written statement had been filed, the Munsif entertained a serious doubt as to whether the Civil Court could take cognizance of the suit. He, therefore, framed two questions and made a reference to the High Court. It was while answering the reference that the Full Bench had made the following observations which are also quoted by the learned Judge in his decision (1979 All LJ 1086).
“The plaintiff chooses his forum and files his suit. If he establishes the correctness of his facts, he will get his relief from the forum chosen. If he framed his suit in a manner not warranted by facts and goes for his relief to a Court which cannot grant him relief, on the true facts, he will have his suit dismissed. Then there will be no question of returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, for the plaint, as framed, would not justify the other kind of Court to grant him the relief. But we are told that although the plaintiff has chosen his forum rightly, the defendant, if he so wishes, may, merely by saying something in his defence-something the correctness of which he need not take the trouble to establish, oust the jurisdiction of the Court and compel the plaintiff to go to another Court.”
8. What has been decided by the Supreme Court in Devasthanam's case (AIR 1965 SC 338) (supra) is that while holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the particular suit, no decision on merit on any point involved therein should be made. It, however, does not lay down that if the Court has no jurisdiction then it had no right to dismiss the suit and must necessarily direct return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The view taken to the contrary in 1983 Rev. Dec. 185 : (AIR 1983 All 145), therefore, does not appear to be wholly correct. In every case, it has to be seen whether on the allegations made in the plaint the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court if so, the plaint had to be returned. But if the question of jurisdiction depends on decision of other questions on merit, then it is not necessary that the Court should always return the plaint. The Court has a discretion either to dismiss the suit after recording a finding that it had no jurisdiction and may in appropriate cases also direct return of the plaint without dismissing the same. It will depend upon the facts of each case and the broad principles have been rightly laid down in the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ananti's case (supra). Applying the principles laid down therein to the facts of the present case, I find that the order passed by the Court below was eminently justified and it was not incumbent on the Court to have dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court has rightly directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court after recording a finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
9. After the arguments in the appeal had been heard, an application was moved by the defendants-appellants disclosing that rights of the parties have been finally determined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his decision dated 26-7-1983. The learned counsel has urged that since it has been finally determined that the defendants are the Sirdars of the land in question, no useful purpose would be served by return of the plaint now.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, however, has urged that the decision has not become final and it was proposed to challenge it in the writ petition. Be that as it may, I do not think that decision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation should either way affect the decision of this Court. If that decision becomes final and binding between the parties, after the return of the plaint, the plaintiffs' suit in the revenue Court would not be maintainable in view of the final decision in the consolidation proceedings. The application is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.
11. In the result both the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in both the appeals.
12. Appeals dismissed.
Alert