Trial Court Cannot Decide Application For Amendment Of Plaint Without Considering Application For Return Of Plaint: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that when a defendant files an application for return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Trial Court must first examine that application before considering any amendment sought by the plaintiff. The Court emphasised that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a Court by way of amendment if it inherently lacks jurisdiction at the time of filing of the plaint.

Justice Valmiki Menezes was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order dated 6 June 2025 vide which the Trial Court had directed that the plaintiff's amendment application be decided first, before considering the defendant's application for return of the plaint. The petitioner contended that this approach was erroneous because the suit as originally filed was in the nature of a commercial dispute falling under the Commercial Courts Act, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge.

The Court observed that the correct approach is for the Trial Court to examine the plaint as it stood at the time of filing and determine whether it inherently lacked jurisdiction, either due to pecuniary limits or a statutory bar. The Court will simultaneously consider whether the amendment application, if granted, would change the nature of the suit and bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court.

“It is only after examining the effect of the amendment on the plaint and the averments made in the plaint as it originally stood, that the Trial Court would have to decide whether the amendment should be allowed, and conversely, the application for return of the plaint would have to be rejected,” the Court observed.

The Court noted that the Trial Court erred in holding that it had to consider the amendment application first, and only if it fails to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court, the application for return of the plaint would have to be considered on the merits.

The Court further held that while considering the application for return of the plaint, the Trial Court may also look into the proposed amendment to test whether it would alter the jurisdictional character of the suit. It observed:

“… the Trial Court may also look into the averments sought to be pleaded by way of amendment to test whether, if these averments were allowed to be incorporated, in the plaint as it originally stood, they would have the effect of conferring the jurisdiction on the Court dealing with the suit, which it otherwise lacked or that the amendment would assist the plaintiff to get over the bar of any law.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to simultaneously consider both the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and the plaintiff's amendment application, keeping in view the principles laid down.

Case Title: Akshay Quenim v. Royce Savio Pereira [Writ Petition No. 375 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Appearances:

• For the Petitioner/Defendant: Mr. Vibhav Amonkar with Mr. Raj Chodankar and Mr. Omkar Bhave.
• For the Respondent/Plaintiff: Mr. Kaif Noorani.