Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has emphasized that a plaint, once returned due to lack of jurisdiction, cannot be re-instituted in the same court without incorporating new and specific averments in the formal pleadings. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that mere assertions made in an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) do not constitute formal pleadings and, therefore, cannot form the basis for re-registration of a previously returned suit.

Arguments:

The case involved a dispute where the respondent had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction and violation of registered design under the Designs Act, 2000, in a Commercial Court in Jaipur. The petitioner challenged the court’s territorial jurisdiction, leading to the return of the plaint. Subsequently, the respondent re-instituted the same plaint in the same court, citing additional documents like bills and invoices to establish jurisdiction. However, the High Court observed that the refiled plaint was identical to the original, lacking any new averments regarding the cause of action arising within the court’s jurisdiction.

Judgement:

Justice Dhand highlighted that for a suit to be re-instituted after being returned, it must contain fresh and specific pleadings that establish the court’s jurisdiction. The court cannot entertain a suit based solely on assertions made in applications under Section 151 CPC, as these do not form part of the formal pleadings. The High Court set aside the Commercial Court’s order allowing the re-institution of the suit and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the appropriate forum.

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when re-instituting suits and clarifies that applications under Section 151 CPC cannot substitute for formal pleadings necessary to establish jurisdiction.