EXL CAREERS Vs. FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to us, there is an apparent conflict between the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Modern Construction & Company, (2014) 1 scc 648 and Joginder Tuli v. S. L. Bhatia, (1997) 1 scc 502 , which we feel should be resolved by a larger Bench.

(2.) The issue which needs to be resolved is "whether after a plaint is returned in terms of Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 10A, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), should the trial in the Court where the plaint is now filed start de novo or from such stage at which the plaint was ordered to be returned?

(3.) To appreciate the issue in hand, it would be necessary to give certain facts. The plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a civil suit at the Court at Gurgaon for recovery against the defendants (petitioners herein). On 26/8/2011, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. It would be pertinent to mention that the ground taken was that the cause of action arose at Meerut and no cause of action arose at Gurgaon and further the defendants did not reside at Gurgaon. This application was contested and it was dismissed on 12/3/2015. The Court held that the evidence was required to be recorded and, therefore, it felt that the issue of jurisdiction should be framed separately as a preliminary issue. Thereafter, the parties filed their pleadings. Issues were framed on 1/10/2015 but at that stage, no preliminary issue was framed. Later, on 6/11/2015, a preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction of the trial court was framed. Parties led evidence on the preliminary issue and the trial court vide order dtd. 6/9/2016 decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The case was then fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff which was recorded on 17/3/2017. The evidence of the defendants was closed on 3/7/2017 and the matter was adjourned to 18/7/2017 for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments.