-
by Admin
29 April 2026 9:54 AM
"Averments in an Application under Section 151 CPC Cannot Substitute Formal Pleadings" — Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench quashed the re-registration of a commercial suit which had previously been returned for want of territorial jurisdiction. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that “unless and until a fresh suit with new averments regarding the cause of action is presented, the previously returned suit cannot be re-instituted or tried”, firmly upholding procedural rigour in jurisdictional matters.
The case stems from a design infringement suit originally filed by Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. before the Commercial Court, Jaipur, alleging that Arta Broch Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., based in Vadodara, Gujarat, was copying its registered crockery designs in violation of the Designs Act, 2000.
Initially, the Commercial Court on 21 January 2021, held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, as "the defendant neither resides nor carries on any business in Jaipur and no cause of action arises therefrom", and returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Instead of challenging this order, the plaintiff re-submitted the exact same plaint, without amending its averments, and the suit was re-registered on 23 February 2021.
This re-registration was challenged by the defendant in the present writ petition.
The primary legal question was whether a plaint that was returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction can be re-submitted without any amendment, and merely based on averments made in an application under Section 151 CPC.
The Court emphatically ruled: “Once a plaint is returned to the plaintiff, the same should not be entertained on the basis of the same averments made earlier in the same plaint.”
Justice Dhand observed that the returned plaint was refiled verbatim, without even a “comma or full stop” changed: “Not a single averment has been made, in any of the paras... that the defendant is doing business by copying the design of the plaintiff at Jaipur.”
He further remarked: “Mere issuance of the bills, vouchers, invoices at Jaipur cannot be a sufficient ground to institute the same suit before the same Court...”
The Court declared that averments made in an application under Section 151 CPC could not serve as a substitute for pleadings in the plaint, and as such:
“A plaint without specific averments, about cause of action, cannot be allowed to be maintained.”
The High Court placed reliance on:
The Court also referred to Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [AIR 1961 SC 372], reaffirming that High Courts must intervene to provide relief when jurisdictional overreach is evident.
Quoting a principle from the judgment: “There is a famous saying: ‘Nip the evil in the bud’. Meaning thereby, a clear rejection is better than a fake promise.”
The Court found the re-registration of the plaint legally untenable and declared: “The Commercial Court cannot entertain a suit that was previously returned, based on assertions made in an application under Section 151 CPC.”
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23 February 2021 was quashed, and the suit was directed to be returned again.
The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed the foundational procedural law principle that territorial jurisdiction must be demonstrated in the plaint itself, and applications under Section 151 CPC cannot override the requirements of Order 7 Rule 10 and Rule 11 CPC. The Court emphasized judicial discipline and struck down the act of re-registering the same plaint without any new pleadings.
“The Commercial Court acted without jurisdiction in re-registering the plaint. Such re-institution without amendment is not permissible under law.”
Date of Decision: 14 May 2025
