LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-67

SHOBAN LAL & CO. Vs. L.R. SHARMA

Decided On May 10, 2005
Shoban Lal And Co. Appellant
V/S
L.R. Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal question raised in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether the presentation of plaint to a proper Court after its return by the Court in which it was initially presented would be deemed to be a continuation of suit or it would be regarded as fresh filing ?

(2.) THE facts in brief are required to be noticed. The petitioner-firm which is a publisher of books filed a civil suit No. 4 of 2003 on 3.10.2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar for permanent injunction and other cognate prayers. A similar suit was filed by the defendant-respondents in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Panchkula. The civil suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was returned under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Civil Judge, Jalandhar on 6.10.2003. After the return of the plaint the civil suit was instituted in the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. the District Judge, Jalandhar on 18.10.2003. It is also appropriate to mention that defendant-respondents withdrew the suit on 25.3.2003 and filed the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 27.3.2003 i.e. before the Addl. District Judge, Panchkula. It emrges from the facts that before the Court of competent jurisdiction of the District/Addl. District Judge the suit by the plaintiff-petitioner was presented on 18.10.2003 and by the defendant-respondents on 27.3.2003.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner who has attempted to argue that the date of filing the suit initially albeit before the wrong forum should be considered as relevant date and accordingly it has to be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff- petitioner was much prior in time to the one filed by the defendant- respondents in the Courts at Panchkula. According to the learned counsel, there are judgments to the contrary on the issue. Learned counsel has further submitted that in any case Section 10 of the Code would not be applicable.