Jurisdiction Objection Must be Decided Before Amendment of Plaint

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court, in M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta & Another (2026), held that an objection to subject-matter jurisdiction raised under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) must be decided before an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Court upheld the Commercial Court’s order directing that the defendants’ application be decided first, and dismissed the petition. 

What was the Background of M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta (2026) Case? 

• The plaintiff-petitioner filed Original Suit No. 2 of 2025 before the Commercial Court, Varanasi under Section 134 read with Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It sought:  
  • A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark “Sarkari Result” and “sarkariexam.com”. 
  • A mandatory injunction against the use of the domain “sarkariresult.com”. 
• On 23rd March 2026, the defendants applied under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC for return and rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. 
• While that application was pending, the plaintiff moved an application on 9th August 2026 to amend the plaint. 
• By order dated 13th August 2026, the Commercial Court directed that the defendants’ application be decided first. 
• The plaintiff challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It argued that:  
  • The Commercial Court had jurisdiction, and only a formal amendment disclosing the specified value of the suit (₹5,00,000) was needed. 
  • A plaintiff whose plaint is returned or rejected can file a fresh suit under Order VII Rule 13 CPC, so the amendment should be taken up first to avoid that situation. 
  • Four High Courts had taken this view. 
• The defendants opposed the petition. They argued that:  
  • The plaint nowhere disclosed the specified value needed to attract the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction. 
  • The court also lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC, and the plaint disclosed no cause of action. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the Jurisdiction of Commercial Courts: 

• Under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a Commercial Court can try only commercial disputes of a “Specified Value”. 
• Under Section 2(1)(i) read with Section 12, the specified value must not be less than ₹3 lakh. 
• The Court noted that the specified value was admittedly not disclosed when the suit was filed, and the plaintiff sought to amend only after jurisdiction was questioned. 

On the Order of Deciding the Applications: 

• Amendment applications are ordinarily dealt with liberally. 
• In this case, however, the objection went to the jurisdiction of the court itself. 
• Where subject-matter jurisdiction is raised, it must be addressed before the amendment application is taken up. 

On Reliance on Earlier Decisions: 

• Relying on Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., the Court noted that the Supreme Court has distinguished subject-matter jurisdiction from territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, and held that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. 
• It also referred to Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Lalit Bhasin, where a co-ordinate bench held that a court cannot confer jurisdiction on itself by allowing an amendment. 

On the Nature of the Proposed Amendment: 

• An amendment that supplies the very facts on which jurisdiction depends is not a mere cure of a defect. 
• It changes the nature of the dispute and makes the amended plaint different from the plaint as filed. 

On Lack of Inherent Jurisdiction: 

• Subject-matter jurisdiction goes to the root of the case. 
• Once a court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it cannot pass any order allowing amendment of the plaint to bring the suit within its jurisdiction. 
• In view of the above, the Court held that the Commercial Court had rightly directed the application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC to be decided first and dismissed the petition.

What is the Law Governing Amendment, Return and Rejection of Plaint under the CPC? 

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down the procedure for amendment of pleadings and for return or rejection of a plaint: 

• Amendment of Pleadings (Order VI Rule 17): The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend its pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. All amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy shall be allowed. Under the proviso, no amendment is allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court concludes that the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. 
• Return of Plaint (Order VII Rule 10): The plaint shall, at any stage of the suit, be returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. 
• Rejection of Plaint (Order VII Rule 11): The plaint shall be rejected:  
  • Where it does not disclose a cause of action. 
  • Where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the court. 
  • Where the relief is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed. 
  • Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 
  • Where it is not filed in duplicate. 
  • Where the plaintiff fails to comply with Order VII Rule 9. 
• Fresh Plaint after Rejection (Order VII Rule 13): Rejection of a plaint on any of the grounds mentioned does not by itself prevent the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint on the same cause of action.