# K. P. Pankaj (Keshav Prasad Pankaj) Government Contactor & Suppliers v. Chairman, Distric Urban Development Authority

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 92
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 94 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/k-p-pankaj-keshav-prasad-pankaj-government-contactor-suppliers-v-chairman-54222
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. Record be remitted back forthwith alongwith the copy of judgment.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 92
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 94 of 2026

K. P. Pankaj (Keshav Prasad Pankaj) Government Contactor & Suppliers ...Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Distric Urban Development Authority ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was justified in rejecting
the plaint under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C. on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, instead of returning the
plaint for presentation before the competent court under O. VII R. 10 C.P.C., particularly when the dispute, as
per the terms of the tender, was exclusively triable by the court at Kushinagar.

Headnotes
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - ss. 20, 96, O.VII R.10, O.VII R.11 - Return of plaint - Jurisdiction
clause in Contract - Territorial Jurisdiction - Scope of - Maintainability of Suit - The instant First
Appeal u/s 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff - appellant against the judgment and
decree whereby the trial court rejected the plaint under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C. on the ground of lack
of territorial jurisdiction - The case of plaintiff is that pursuant to a tender floated by the
defendants, the plaintiff firm was awarded several work orders for supply of construction
materials, which were duly supplied; however, a substantial amount allegedly remained unpaid,
giving rise to a claim for recovery along with interest - The defendants contested the
maintainability of the suit at Gorakhpur by filing an application under O. VII R. 11 C.P.C.,
contending that no cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and that, as per the
terms of the tender, disputes were triable exclusively at Kushinagar - The trial court accepted
the objection and rejected the plaint, leading to the instant appeal before High Court challenging
the legality of such rejection.
Held: It is apparent that as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the dispute was only entertainable by
the District Court, Kushinagar, as such, the suit was not maintainable before the District Court, Gorakhpur -
Neither the office of defendant no.3 was situated in District Gorakhpur, nor any cause of action ever arose
within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court Gorakhpur, as such, the trial court has not erred insofar as
concluding that the District Court, Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, but the trial court
has erred in not returning the plaint to the plaintiff under O. 7 R. 10 CPC for presenting before the competent
court of jurisdiction -The trial court has erred in rejecting the plaint under O. 7 R. 11 CPC, which was not at all
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case - Thus, impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025
is affirmed but the decision of rejecting the plaint is set aside - Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
[Paras 19, 24, 25] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Exl Careers and another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Private Limited (2020) 12 SCC 667 (By 3 Judges) -
referred to
2 All. K.P. Pankaj (Keshav Prasad Pankaj) Government Contactor & Suppliers Vs. Chairman, District Urban
 Development Authority
93
List of Acts
Civil Procedure Code, 1908

List of Keywords
First Appeal; O. VII R. 11 C.P.C.; Return of plaint; O. VII R. 10; s. 96; C.P.C.; Territorial jurisdiction;
Maintainability of suit; Terms of tender; Work order; Supply of construction materials; Recovery of money;
Outstanding amount; Interest claim; Contractual dispute; Filing of suit; Objection to jurisdiction; Competent
court of jurisdiction; Presentation of plaint; Appellate court powers; Affirmation of finding on jurisdiction;
Setting aside of rejection order; Appeal partly allowed

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. - 94 of 2026

From the Judgment and Decree dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Court No. 3, Gorakhpur

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant:
Ashwani Kumar Pathak

Adv. for the Respondent:
Ugrasen Kumar Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
in Original Suit No. 244 of 2018 (K.P. Pankaj @ Keshav Prasad Pankaj vs. Chairman, District
Urban Development Authority, Kushinagar and others) against the impugned judgment and decree
dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3,
Gorakhpur, whereby the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground
that, as per the terms of the tender, the disputes were to be adjudicated by the competent court at
Kushinagar, whereas the plaintiff has filed the suit before the Court at Gorakhpur, which was
legally not maintainable.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that a tender was published by the defendants in local
newspapers of Gorakhpur on 09.12.2013 and 10.12.2013 for the supply of construction materials
for road construction. The plaintiff firm applied pursuant to the said tender which was accepted,
and consequently, 13 work orders were awarded to the plaintiff from time to time. On 30.06.2014,
the defendants awarded a work order to the plaintiff for the supply of certain construction
materials, valued at Rs. 22.31 lakhs.

4. In pursuance of the said work order, the plaintiff firm supplied the construction materials to
the defendants strictly in accordance with the terms of the work order.

5. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that a contract was not duly executed between the
plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the said work order, and that, from time to time, the
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plaintiff firm supplied the construction materials in due fulfillment of the obligations arising out of
the work order, so awarded.

6. It was further averred that a payment of Rs. 85.94 lakhs was required to be made to the
plaintiff firm by defendant no. 1, but only an amount of Rs.18,54,155/- was paid. Hence, a dispute
arose as the defendants failed to pay an amount of Rs. 67,39,845/- towards the construction
material supplied by the plaintiff firm in pursuance of work orders awarded to it from time to time.
The plaintiff firm claimed that it was also entitled to compound interest at the rate of 18% quarterly
on the said outstanding amount. It was further alleged that Mr. P.K. Gupta, acting on behalf of
defendant no. 4, demanded a commission of 25%, and since the said commission was not paid, the
aforesaid amount was wrongfully withheld from the plaintiff firm.

7. Ultimately, when the amount due to the plaintiff was not paid by the defendants, the
plaintiffs have filed this suit for the relief of declaration that they are entitled to get an amount of
Rs.67,39,845/- along with 18% quarterly interest from the defendants.

8. During the pendency of the suit, an application no.19-A under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was
filed by defendant nos. 4 to 6 on the ground that the plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of
Rs.67,39,845/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per month. It was averred that the defendant
nos.1, 3 and 4 are working in official capacity in District Kushinagar, whereas defendant no.2 is a
Government Officer working in Lucknow and defendant nos. 5 and 6 are residents of District
Kushinagar. It was averred that defendant no.3 has awarded work orders to the plaintiff, from his
office situated in Collectorate, at District Kushinagar and the construction material was also to be
supplied in Nagar Panchayat, Hata, District Kushinagar and the cheque paying for the aforesaid
material supplied by the plaintiff, was also issued by the above office of defendant no.3, as such, no
cause of action ever arose in District Gorakhpur. It was submitted that due to this no cause of action
has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the plaint be rejected under Order 7
Rule 11 C.P.C.

9. The plaintiff submitted its objection 21-C to the defendants above application and averred
that the plaintiff firm is situated in Gorakhpur and the construction material was also supplied from
Gorakhpur, and the payment was also made to the plaintiff firm at Gorakhpur, which was also
accepted by defendant nos.4 to 6, as such, the Gorakhpur Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide
the suit. It was further averred that the payment made by the defendants have also been received by
the plaintiff's bank in Gorakhpur. It was averred that since the cause of action for filing the suit
arose within the jurisdiction of District Court Gorakhpur, as such, the suit was legally maintainable.

10. The trial court by impugned order dated 02.04.2025 has concluded that the tender for
supplying construction material was published on 09.12.2013 and 10.12.2013 in newspapers, which
were published from Gorakhpur, the work order for supplying the construction material dated
30.06.2014 was issued by the defendants from District Kushinagar, the payment of Rs.22.31 lakhs
was also sanctioned by Chairman/District Magistrate (DUDA), Kushinagar on 04.03.2014, the
plaintiff firm in compliance of work order dated 20.06.2014 supplied material, which was issued by
defendant no.4, another work order nos. 32, 33 and 35 were issued to the plaintiff firm by the
2 All. K.P. Pankaj (Keshav Prasad Pankaj) Government Contactor & Suppliers Vs. Chairman, District Urban
 Development Authority
95
Project Officer (DUDA), Kushinagar. The trial court concluded that from time to time work orders
were issued to the plaintiff firm for supplying construction material to the defendants.

11. The trial court concluded that as per the terms of the tender, which was accepted by the
plaintiff in District Kushinagar, there was a condition that if any dispute arose regarding the terms
of the tender, then the jurisdiction for deciding that dispute vested in the Court at Kushinagar. The
trial court concluded that the work order was issued to the plaintiff by the Project Director, District
Urban Development Authority, Kushinagar and the payment was also to be made by the same
authority, and as per terms of the tender, the dispute was only maintainable before the District
Court, Kushinagar, hence, the trial court concluded that as per Section 20 of the C.P.C., the District
Court at Gorakhpur lacked territorial jurisdiction, as such, the defendants' application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and consequentially, the plaint was rejected.

12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the tender was published in local
newspapers of Gorakhpur, the plaintiff firm is also situated in Gorakhpur, the plaintiff submitted
his bid from Gorakhpur, the construction materials were supplied by the plaintiff from Gorakhpur
and the part payment by defendants for the construction materials supplied by the plaintiff was also
made in the plaintiff's bank account in Gorakhpur, hence, the court at Gorakhpur had the
jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and as such, the trial court has committed error in rejecting
the plaint. It was further submitted that instead of rejecting the plaint, it should have been returned
for presentation to the competent court under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, since, the court cannot reject
the plaint, for want of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. With these submissions, it was
prayed that the appeal be admitted and allowed.

13. Per-contra, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents submitted that no cause of
action ever arose within the jurisdiction of the District Court at Gorakhpur, as such, the trial court
has not committed any illegality in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

14. It was submitted that the tender was awarded to the plaintiff firm by the defendants at
District Kushinagar. The work order was granted from District Kushinagar, and the construction
material in pursuance of the work order, was also supplied by the plaintiff firm at District
Kushinagar and the payment was also made by the defendants from District Kushinagar, as such,
the dispute was maintainable only before the District Court, Kushinagar.

15. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be dismissed at the
admission stage.

16. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides, perused the impugned judgment and
documents submitted with the appeal.

17. Appeal is admitted.

18. From the documents submitted with the appeal, it is evident that the tender was floated by
the defendant no.3 Project Director, District Urban Development Authority (DUDA), District
Kushinagar, and the plaintiff firm made a bid for the tender which was accepted at District
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kushinagar and thereafter, from time to time certain work orders were granted to the plaintiff firm
by defendant no.3, in compliance of which construction material was supplied at District
Kushinagar and when certain payment was not made by the defendants, then the plaintiff has filed
the instant suit for the recovery of the balance amount. It is further apparent that except defendant
no.2, all the other defendants are resident of District Kushinagar.

19. It is apparent that as per the terms and conditions of the tender, the dispute was only
entertainable by the District Court, Kushinagar, as such, the suit was not maintainable before the
District Court, Gorakhpur. Neither the office of defendant no.3 was situated in District Gorakhpur,
nor any cause of action ever arose within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court Gorakhpur, as
such, the trial court has not erred insofar as concluding that the District Court, Gorakhpur had no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, but the trial court has erred in not returning the plaint to the
plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presenting before the competent court of jurisdiction.The
trial court has certainly erred in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11CPC, which was not at all
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

20. The Apex Court in the case of Exl Careers and another vs Frankfinn Aviation Services
Private Limited (2020) 12 SCC 667 (By 3 Judges),while considering the procedure to be adopted
by the Court in case of lack of jurisdiction, held as under:-

"15.Modern Construction [ONGC v. Modern Construction & Co., (2014) 1 SCC 648 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 617] , referred to the consistent position in law by reference to Ramdutt
Ramkissen Dass v. E.D. Sassoon & Co. [Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass v. E.D. Sassoon & Co., 1929
SCC OnLine PC 3 : (1928-29) 56 IA 128 : AIR 1929 PC 103] , Amar Chand Inani v. Union of
India [Amar Chand Inani v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 115] , Hanamanthappa v.
Chandrashekharappa [Hanamanthappa v. Chandrashekharappa, (1997) 9 SCC 688] , Harshad
Chimanlal Modi (2) [Harshad Chimanlal Modi (2) v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 364] and
after also noticing Joginder Tuli [Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502] , arrived at the
conclusion as follows: (Modern Construction case [ONGC v. Modern Construction & Co., (2014) 1
SCC 648 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 617] , SCC p. 654, para 17)

"17. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that
if the court where the suit is instituted, is of the view that it has no jurisdiction, the plaint is to be
returned in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and the plaintiff can present it before the
court having competent jurisdiction. In such a factual matrix, the plaintiff is entitled to exclude the
period during which he prosecuted the case before the court having no jurisdiction in view of the
provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and may also seek adjustment of court fee paid in
that court. However, after presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be
considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded
before the court having no competence to try the same."

Joginder Tuli was also noticed in Harshad Chimanlal Modi but distinguished on its own
facts.
2 All. Shivam Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
97

16. We find no contradiction in the law as laid down in Modern Construction pronounced
after consideration of the law and precedents requiring reconsideration in view of any conflict with
Joginder Tuli . Modern Construction lays down the correct law. We answer the reference
accordingly."

21. It is well settled that if the Court is not having a jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, the
plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and it has to be accordingly returned to the
plaintiff for presentation to the competent court of jurisdiction.

22. It is also apparent that under Explanation to Order 7 Rule 10(1) CPC, the appellate or
revisional court can also direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint
for presentation before the competent court of jurisdiction.

23. In view of this, the trial court instead of rejecting the plaint, should have returned it to the
plaintiff for presentation to the competent court of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

25. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025 insofar as the
conclusion of the trial court that it has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, is
affirmed but the decision of rejecting the plaint is set aside. The original suit No.244 of 2018 is
restored to its original number and the trial court is hereby directed to return the original plaint to
the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, for presentation before the
competent Court of jurisdiction.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 97
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 47 of 2026

Shivam Chaurasiya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the reasons and grounds of arrest were supplied to the petitioner and it cannot be said that the
arrest is illegal and unjustified from any angle and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed, there
being no infirmity in the arrest of the petitioner.

Head Notes