http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HANAMANTHAPPA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY,1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy                Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.T. Nanavati      S.K. Kulkarni, Adv. for Ms.Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. for the appellants                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:                          O R D E R      This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Karnataka  High Court, made in C.R.P. No.1650/96 on July 9, 1996.      Admittedly, the  respondents filed O.S.No.158/94 in the Court of District Munsiff, Navalagund. On grounds of lack of territorial  jurisdiction   the  plaint   was  returned  for presentation to  the proper court. Accordingly, after making necessary  amendment   to   the   plaint   the   respondents represented the  suit, which  came to  be numbered  as  O.S. No.10/91, in  Civil Court  at Dharwad. The petitioners filed an application  under Order  VII, Rule 10, CPC for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the plaint was materially altered, without  seeking permission  for amendment  of  the plaint as  required under  Order VI  rule 17,  CPC. The High Court dismissed the petition.      It is  contended by  Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, that since the petition had been filed with amended averments  in the  plaint, necessarily  it  must  be treated  to   be  a   fresh  plaint   and  not   one   after representation to  the proper court. We find no force in the contention. The  object of  Order VII, Rule 10-A is that the plaintiff, on  return of the plaint, can either challenge in an  appellate   forum  or  represent  to  the  court  having territorial  jurisdiction   to  entertain   the   suit.   In substance,  it  is  a  suit  filed  afresh  subject  to  the limitation, pecuniary  jurisdiction and payment of the court fee as  had rightly  been pointed  out by  the  High  Court. Therefore, it  cannot be  dismissed on  the ground  that the plaintiff made  averments which  did not  find place  in the original plaint  presented  before  the  court  of  District Munsiff, Navalgund.  It is  not  always  necessary  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

plaintiff to  seek amendment  of the  plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. At best it can be treated to be a fresh plaint and the matter can be proceeded with according to law. Under those circumstances, we do not think that there is any error of law  committed by  the High  Court in  giving  the  above direction.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.