Plaintiff Cannot Confer Jurisdiction By Amending Pleadings, Amounts To Changing Nature Of Dispute: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a party cannot confer jurisdiction on a civil court through an amendment of pleadings that would fundamentally alter the nature of the dispute. Dismissing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court upheld the trial court's refusal to allow amendment of pleadings before deciding the respondent's application for return of the plaint due to lack of jurisdiction.
Justice Nivedita P. Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP, seeking to quash the order of the trial court vide which it had declined to entertain the amendment of pleadings filed by the petitioner-plaintiff before deciding upon the application for return of the plaint filed by the respondent.
The petitioner argued that the Trial Court erred in observing that the application filed by the respondents for return of the plaint on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction has to be decided prior to the application for amendment of the plaint. He submitted that an opportunity to rectify the defects has to be afforded to the petitioner, provided that no prejudice or injustice is caused to the respondent.
Rejecting the argument, the court said that the argument does not hold weight because “an amendment that seeks to rectify the absence of essential juridical facts conferring jurisdiction upon the court cannot be stated to be merely curing of defects. Such an amendment would lead to a change in the very nature of the dispute and isolate the character of the plaint that is filed from the character of the amended plaint.”
The Court said that while territorial jurisdiction may be treated as a technicality that may not outweigh the cause of justice, a ruling by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity. The Court said:
“…the Court seized with the suit has to examine whether the essential ingredients that would invite the jurisdiction of the court are disclosed, and if it is found that such ingredients are missing, it would render the court lacking in jurisdiction.”
The Court held that it is not a matter purely of the Trial Court's discretion in terms of what the Trial Court prefers to hear and adjudicate when. Rather, it is the chronological order in which issues are brought. Since the application for amendment was filed after hearing the arguments advanced by the respondents in relation to the application for return of the plaint, the application for return of the plaint has to be decided first.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: M/s. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP v. M/s. Gregory & Nicholas & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 237 of 2025 (F)]