A Plaint Which Is Entirely Devoid Of Jurisdictional Averments Cannot Be Cured Through Replication Or Amendment: Delhi High Court

“Plaint Completely Bereft of Jurisdictional Facts—Replication Cannot Cure Foundational Defect. Jurisdiction must be pleaded—jurisdiction cannot be assumed,” held the Delhi High Court in a decisive judgment dismissing an appeal in a commercial suit where the trial court had returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The Court ruled that once the original plaint fails to disclose how the forum court has jurisdiction, even allowing an amendment would be impermissible, and subsequent pleadings such as replication cannot fill the gap.

The appeal was filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the order of the Trial Court dated 22 March 2025, which returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, holding that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi and the plaint did not disclose any jurisdictional facts.

“Replication Cannot Introduce Jurisdiction Where the Plaint Is Silent”: Court Declines to Look Beyond the Four Corners of the Plaint

The Court clarified that an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC must be adjudicated solely on the contents of the plaint, and jurisdiction must be demonstrable on the face of it. In rejecting the appellant’s attempt to rely on subsequent replication and replies, the Court held:

“Replication cannot be considered to create jurisdiction where the plaint itself is silent. Foundational defects cannot be retrofitted by subsequent pleadings.”

The appellant had argued that jurisdictional facts—such as receipt of orders, issuance of commission invoices, and correspondence—all occurred from Delhi, and those details were mentioned in the replication. However, the Court categorically rejected this submission:

“Such pleas in replication are irrelevant in a demurrer under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Trial Court was correct in declining to go beyond the plaint.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688, the Bench reiterated:

“When an objection to jurisdiction is raised by way of demurrer, the objection must proceed on the basis that the facts as pleaded in the plaint are true. The Court cannot look into the written statement or replication.”

“Where a Court Has No Jurisdiction, It Cannot Even Entertain an Amendment Application”: Amendment Rejected, Plaint Returned

The Trial Court had also rejected an application by the plaintiff to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, holding that when the Court lacks territorial jurisdiction on the face of the plaint, it cannot allow amendment to cure the defect. This position was affirmed by the High Court, relying on the decisions in:

• HSIL Ltd. v. Imperial Ceramic, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7185
• Archie Comic Publications Inc. v. Purple Creation Pvt. Ltd., 172 (2010) DLT 234 (DB)
• Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791

Quoting extensively from Archie Comic Publications, the Court held:

“If a plaint is completely bereft of jurisdictional facts, the Court will not have jurisdiction even to allow an application seeking amendment… jurisdiction cannot be conferred retroactively where it never existed.”

This distinction was drawn from the Court’s earlier observations in Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. Advance Magazine Publishers and was restated with clarity in the present case.

“The Plaintiff Merely Pleaded That It Works for Profit in Delhi—This Is No Ground for Jurisdiction Under Section 20 CPC”: Delhi Courts Had No Nexus

The core dispute related to the recovery of ₹44,88,961/– as commission on a commercial transaction involving the supply of paperboards to a Vietnamese buyer. The plaintiff claimed to be the broker between the defendant (in Gujarat) and the overseas client, and that it coordinated the transaction from Delhi.

However, the Court noted that the plaint made no specific averments of any part of the cause of action arising in Delhi. The only jurisdictional statement in the plaint was that:

“This Hon’ble Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the Plaintiff works for profit in Delhi.” (Para 23 of plaint)

This, the Court ruled, does not meet the statutory threshold under Section 20 of the CPC.

“Jurisdiction is determined by the defendant’s location or where cause of action arises. Plaintiff’s residence or business presence alone is immaterial under Section 20.”

The Court underscored that the transaction, correspondence, supply, invoicing, and payment all occurred in or through Gujarat, and the goods were exported from Gujarat to Vietnam. Nothing linked the transaction to Delhi in a legally significant manner.

“Distinction Between Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 Must Be Maintained”: Scope Limited to Plaint Alone

The Bench carefully distinguished between the two procedural routes—Order VII Rule 10 CPC (return of plaint for lack of jurisdiction) and Order VII Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint for failure to disclose cause of action or other defects). It held that:

“While Order VII Rule 11 applications may allow scope for subsequent pleadings, Order VII Rule 10 must be decided strictly on the averments in the plaint. Subsequent elaboration cannot retrospectively vest jurisdiction.”

In the face of this procedural framework, the Court declined to entertain the appellant’s argument based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal (2017) 5 SCC 345. The High Court observed:

“Kuldeep Singh Pathania dealt with preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC, not a demurrer under Order VII Rule 10. That distinction is both material and dispositive.”

“Allowing Forum Shopping Would Undermine Foundational Jurisdictional Norms”: Court Emphasises Discipline in Jurisdictional Pleading

Concluding the judgment, the Court cautioned against forum shopping and jurisdictional overreach, holding that allowing litigants to invoke courts merely on the basis of their own business presence would erode fundamental principles of civil procedure.

“Jurisdiction must be pleaded and shown. Courts are not open forums to be chosen at convenience; they are bound by statutory limits. Permitting otherwise would legitimise forum shopping.”

This ruling is a strong reaffirmation of jurisdictional discipline in commercial litigation. The Delhi High Court has decisively held that territorial jurisdiction cannot be assumed, inferred, or constructed post-facto. The plaint must contain material facts showing that the defendant resides or carries on business within the forum, or that a part of the cause of action arose there.

Where the plaint lacks such averments, the Court has no jurisdiction not only to hear the case but even to allow its amendment. The principle that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acquiescence or subsequent pleadings was enforced with strict adherence.

“Plaint bereft of jurisdictional facts is incurably defective. Replication cannot infuse it with life, and amendment cannot heal what was never alive,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025