2019 (10) TMI 1285 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - appeal dismissed on the ground of Jurisdiction - Refund of Court Fees - HELD THAT - This application has been rejected only on the ground that the appeal has been disposed of on merits. We are unable to agree with the High Court. What has been disposed of is only the rejection order under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is no order on the merits of the suit. The effect is that the plaint has been ordered to be returned to be filed in the appropriate Court. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to refund of the court fees so that he can fix the court fee in the State where he would like to file the suit. The order of the High Court is set aside - it is directed that the entire court fees be refunded to the petitioner - SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of suit on the ground of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11
2. Review petition modification regarding rejection of plaint
3. Appeal dismissal with direction to return plaint for filing in competent jurisdiction
4. Application for refund of court fees rejected based on appeal disposal

Issue 1: Dismissal of suit on the ground of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11
The petitioner filed a suit for damages, and the defendants sought dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11. The learned Single Judge initially accepted this plea, leading to the rejection of the plaint. However, upon a review petition, the Single Judge modified the order, directing the rejection of the plaint while clarifying that it was not a dismissal of the suit itself.

Issue 2: Review petition modification regarding rejection of plaint
Following the review petition, the learned Single Judge modified the earlier order, specifying that the rejection of the plaint was distinct from the dismissal of the suit. This modification allowed for the return of the plaint with the liberty to file it before the court of competent jurisdiction, thereby addressing the jurisdictional concerns raised by the defendants.

Issue 3: Appeal dismissal with direction to return plaint for filing in competent jurisdiction
Subsequently, the petitioner's appeal against the modified order was dismissed. However, the court directed the return of the plaint with the liberty to file it in the appropriate court having jurisdiction. This decision ensured that the petitioner could pursue the suit in the correct legal forum, resolving the jurisdictional issue raised by the defendants.

Issue 4: Application for refund of court fees rejected based on appeal disposal
The petitioner then filed an application for the refund of court fees, which was rejected on the basis that the appeal had been disposed of on merits. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning, clarifying that the disposal of the appeal only pertained to the rejection order under Order VII Rule 10 and did not address the merits of the suit itself. As a result, the petitioner was deemed entitled to a refund of the court fees to enable them to file the suit in the appropriate jurisdiction, leading to the court's directive to refund the entire court fees to the petitioner.