ONGC LTD. versus M/S. MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND CO.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 07-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 466 
ONGC LTD. 
v. 
M/S. MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND CO. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8957-8958 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 7, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Code of Ci~i/ Procedure, 1908- Or. VII r.10- Suit returned 
- To be presented before court of competent jurisdiction - The 
C suit before court of competent jurisdiction decreed directing 
the defendant to pay interest on decretal amount from the date 
of filing of the suit - Payment of interest from the date of filing 
of the suit before the court of competent jurisdiction - Claim 
of interest by decree-holder from the date of the suit filed 
D before the court, not having jurisdiction - Held: Once the plaint 
was returned under Order VII r.10 and presented before the 
court of competent jurisdiction, subsequent suit was a fresh 
suit and not continuation of the previous suit - Decree-holder 
cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own mistake of 
E instituting suit before wrong court - Hence, not entitled to 
interest from the date of filing of the suit before wrong court. 
Maxim - 'Actus Curiae Neminum Gravabit' - Applicability. 
Respondent-plaintiff filed suits in the year 1986 in the 
F civil court at 'Mehsana' which were decreed. But the order 
of the civil court was set aside by High Court in appeal 
on the ground that the civil court at Mehsana had no 
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The High 
Court directed the civil court at 'Mehsana' to return the 
G plaints to the respondent, so that the same could be filed 
before the appropriate court having jurisdiction. 
Thereafter, the respondent filed the suits in competent 
court at Surat on 3.2.1999. The suits were allowed 
holding that the respondent was entitled to decretal 
H 
466 
ONGC LTD. v. MIS. MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND 467 
CO. 
amount with a future interest@ 12% per annum from the 
A 
date of filing of the suit till realization. The appellant paid 
the decretal amount with interest from the date the 
respondent had presented the plaints before the Court of 
competent jurisdiction i.e. 3.2.1999. The respondent filed 
Special Execution Petition claiming interest for the period 
B 
1986 to 1999 i.e. the period when the suit remained 
pending before the court at Mehsana which had no 
jurisdiction. Executing court dismissed the petition. 
Appeal against the same was dismissed. However, the 
High Court by the impugned judgment held that the c 
respondent was entitled to interest from the date of 
institution of the suit at Mehsana Court. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. If the court, where the suit is instituted, is 
of the view that it has no jurisdiction, the plaint is to be 
returned in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 
CPC and the plaintiff can present it before the court 
having competent jurisdiction. In such a factual matrix, the 
E 
plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he 
prosecuted the case before the court having no 
jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the 
Limitation Act, and may also seek adjustment of court fee 
paid in that court. However, after presentation before the 
court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be 
considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be 
conducted de novo, even if it stood concluded before the 
court having no competence to try the same. [Para 13] 
[476-E-G] 
F 
G 
Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass vs. E.D. Sassoon and Co. 
AIR 1929 PC 103;Sri Amar Chand lnani vs. Union of India 
AIR 1973 SC 313: 1973 (2) SCR 684; Hanamanthappa and 
Anr. vs. Chandrashekharappa and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1307: 
1997 (1) SCR 846; Harshad Chimanla/ Modi (II) vs. D.L.F. 
H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A Universal Ltd. and Anr. AIR 2006 SC 646: 2005 (5) Suppl. 
B 
SCR 740 - relied on. 
Joginder Tuli vs. S.L. Bhatia and Anr. (1997) 1 SCC 502: 
1996 (7) 
Suppl. SCR 221 • distinguished. 
2. Respondent instituted the suit in Civil Court at 
Mehsana which admittedly had no jurisdiction to entertain 
the suit. In spite of the fact that the civil suit stood 
decreed, the High Court directed the court at Mehsana to 
return the plaint. The High Court while passing the order 
C did not exercise its power of transfer under Section 24 
CPC; rather the language used in the said judgment 
makes it clear that the return of the plaints was required 
in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Once 
the plaint was presented before the Civil Court at Surat, 
D

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.