# Ram Phal v. Ram Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 544
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-28
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 2375 of 1982
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-phal-v-ram-singh-ors-54751
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Madnesh Prasad Singh, Pramod Kumar,
Vinod Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the decision in Mst. Ananti v. Chhannu
(AIR 1930 All 193), which held that a plaint filed
in a Civil Court for a suit cognizable by a
Revenue
Court
cannot
be
returned
for
presentation to the proper court, still holds good
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam
v.
K.
Gopalaswami Aiyangar (AIR 1965 SC 338) and
the amended provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of
the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100, Order 7 Rule 10, - Indian
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article - 14 - Second
appeal - of the year 1982 - concerning
jurisdiction of Civil Court over suits cognizable
by Revenue Court - during pendency, several
respondents died however legal heirs were
impleaded - substantial question of law - once a
court come to the conclusion that it has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, the plaint has
to be returned back and the said court mya not
be go into the other issues and if plaint is
presented in the competent court, the suit will
be decided De Novo by granting benefit of
Article 14 of Limitation Act - Trial Court held it
lacked jurisdiction but proceeded to decide
other issues and dismissed the suit - Civil
Appeal - first appellate court upheld dismissal
without addressing jurisdictional error - second
appeal - court finds that, the said court has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit and the
competent court would be the court of Revenue
8 All. Ram Phal Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.
545
- held - once jurisdiction is found lacking, the
plaint must be returned under Order 7 Rule 10
CPC - hence, instant second Appeal is allowed -
Trial Court directed to return plaint for
presentation before Competent Revenue Court.
(Para - 6, 7, 8, 9)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
Mst. Ananti v. Chhannu, AIR 1930 All 193
(Full
Bench);
Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam
v.
K.
Gopalaswami
Aiyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338; Bansraj &
Others v. Moti & Others (Second Appeal
No. 545 of 1992, decided on 30.07.2019)
and EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation
Services (P) Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 667 :
2020 SCC OnLine SC 621.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - and - Limitation
Act, 1963.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Jurisdiction - Revenue Court - Civil Court -
Return of plaint - Order 7 Rule 10 CPC - De
novo trial - Legal heirs - Substantial question of
law - Limitation Act - Second Appeal.

CASE ARISING FROM
Dismissal of a civil suit by the Trial Court on
grounds of lack of jurisdiction, followed by
dismissal of the first appeal without addressing
the jurisdictional error.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. A. K. Gaur and
Shri W. H. Khan learned Senior Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. M K Sharma and
Shri Madnesh Prasad Singh.

## Text

544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
point of determination No.(i) is decided in
negative and it is held that suit for
cancellation of sale deed and injunction at
the instance of plaintiff, who is tenant of
the defendant No.2 is not maintainable.

15. Point of determination No.ii)
Whether the application filed by defendant
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. can be
allowed and plaint of suit No.342 of 2021
can be rejected?

16. While deciding the point of
determination No.(i) it is held that suit
No.342 of 2021 for cancellation of sale
deed and injunction at the instance of
plaintiff who is tenant of the defendant
No.2 is not maintainable as such in view of
ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in
Himalaya Vintrade Ltd. (Supra) the
plaint of suit No.342 of 2021 is liable to be
rejected.

17. In view of the aforementioned
facts and circumstances of the case the
point of determination No.(ii) is answered
in affirmative and the plaint of suit No.342
of 2021 should be rejected which has been
rightly rejected by trial court under
impugned judgment.

18. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, there is no
illegality in the judgment and decree passed
by trial court rejecting plaint of suit No.342
of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

19. The first appeal is dismissed,
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 544
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Second Appeal No. 2375 of 1982

Ram Phal ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.K. Gaur, M.K. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Madnesh Prasad Singh, Pramod Kumar,
Vinod Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the decision in Mst. Ananti v. Chhannu
(AIR 1930 All 193), which held that a plaint filed
in a Civil Court for a suit cognizable by a
Revenue
Court
cannot
be
returned
for
presentation to the proper court, still holds good
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam
v.
K.
Gopalaswami Aiyangar (AIR 1965 SC 338) and
the amended provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of
the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100, Order 7 Rule 10, - Indian
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article - 14 - Second
appeal - of the year 1982 - concerning
jurisdiction of Civil Court over suits cognizable
by Revenue Court - during pendency, several
respondents died however legal heirs were
impleaded - substantial question of law - once a
court come to the conclusion that it has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit, the plaint has
to be returned back and the said court mya not
be go into the other issues and if plaint is
presented in the competent court, the suit will
be decided De Novo by granting benefit of
Article 14 of Limitation Act - Trial Court held it
lacked jurisdiction but proceeded to decide
other issues and dismissed the suit - Civil
Appeal - first appellate court upheld dismissal
without addressing jurisdictional error - second
appeal - court finds that, the said court has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit and the
competent court would be the court of Revenue
8 All. Ram Phal Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.
545
- held - once jurisdiction is found lacking, the
plaint must be returned under Order 7 Rule 10
CPC - hence, instant second Appeal is allowed -
Trial Court directed to return plaint for
presentation before Competent Revenue Court.
(Para - 6, 7, 8, 9)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
Mst. Ananti v. Chhannu, AIR 1930 All 193
(Full
Bench);
Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam
v.
K.
Gopalaswami
Aiyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338; Bansraj &
Others v. Moti & Others (Second Appeal
No. 545 of 1992, decided on 30.07.2019)
and EXL Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation
Services (P) Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 667 :
2020 SCC OnLine SC 621.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - and - Limitation
Act, 1963.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Jurisdiction - Revenue Court - Civil Court -
Return of plaint - Order 7 Rule 10 CPC - De
novo trial - Legal heirs - Substantial question of
law - Limitation Act - Second Appeal.

CASE ARISING FROM
Dismissal of a civil suit by the Trial Court on
grounds of lack of jurisdiction, followed by
dismissal of the first appeal without addressing
the jurisdictional error.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. A. K. Gaur and
Shri W. H. Khan learned Senior Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Mr. M K Sharma and
Shri Madnesh Prasad Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.K. Gaur and Sri W.H.
Khan, learned Senior Advocates assisted by
Sri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for
appellants and Sri Madnesh Prasad Singh,
learned counsel for legal heirs of some
respondents.

2. This is second appeal of the year
1982. During pendency of second appeal,
number of respondents have died and some
of legal heirs were already brought on
record and rest of them brought on the date
of hearing. Number of legal heirs have
already been represented by their respective
advocates, therefore, without waiting the
fresh notice, this appeal was heard finally
on the question of law framed when present
appeal was admitted by an order dated
25.08.1982. For reference the said order is
reproduced hereinafter :-

" Admit. Issue notice.

The substantial question of law
involved in the second appeal is whether
the decision of a full Bench of this Court in
Mst. Ananti Vs. Chhannu (AIR 1930 Alld.
193) that if the suit is cognizable by a
Revenue Court and is filed in a Civil Court,
the
plaint
cannot
be
returned
for
presentation before the proper court is still
good law in view of the decision of the
Supreme
Court
in
Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam
Vs.
K.
Gopalaswami
Aiyangar (AIR 1965 SC 338) and the
amended provisions of order 7 Rule 10
C.P.C. and what order should be passed in
the suit."

3. Heard counsel for parties and
perused the record.

4. I have the benefit of a very
elaborate judgment passed on same issue
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Bansraj And Others Vs. Moti And Others,
Second Appeal No.545 of 1992, decided on
30.07.2019 and the relevant part thereof is
mentioned hereinafter :-

"38. The aforesaid issue again
came up before this Court in Gulab and
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others vs. Jaggan Ram Singh and others11,
where this Court held that an old Full
Bench Decision reported in Mst. Ananti vs.
Channu12 (to which reference has been
made in the context of the authority next
considered in this judgment) is no longer
good law in view of the authority of the
Supreme Court in Sri Athmanatha-swami
Devasthanam (supra). It was held by this
Court in Gulab and others (supra) that the
jurisdiction can be challenged anywhere, at
any stage, and once it is held that the Court
has no jurisdiction, it could neither decree
the suit or dismiss it. It was held by this
Court in Gulab and others (supra) thus:

"4. I am of the opinion that in
view of Athmanathaswami Devasthanam's
case (supra) decided by the Supreme Court,
the Full Bench case of Mst. Ananti was no
more good law. It has been held in AIR
1954 SC 340Kiran Singh v. Chaman
Paswan where an order was passed without
jurisdiction
it
could
be
challenged
anywhere at any stage. As the Courts below
have given a finding that they have no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit any further
finding or decision given by them would be
without jurisdiction. They could neither
decree the suit nor dismiss it.

5. Under the circumstances I am
bound to follow the law laid down by AIR
1965 SC 338 in case of Athmanathaswami
(supra).

6. The learned counsel for the
respondent argued that the case of that
Athmanathaswami (supra) was considered
by the learned single Judge in the case of
Devi Dutt Sharma (1979 All LJ 1086)
(supra). From the judgment it appears that
the learned single Judge referred to that
case in para 3 of the judgment but how that
case was not applicable is not indicated in
the judgment. Consequently I hold that the
Courts
below
were not
justified
in
dismissing the suit."

39. This Court, however, in Lal
Bahadur Singh and another vs. Bagesara
and others13, went into the distinction
between cases where the question as to lack
of jurisdiction is raised and decided at the
earliest, and those cases where parties go to
trial completing the entire course, or may
be in appeal where it is found that the Court
had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This
distinction appears to have its genesis in the
Full Bench decision of this Court in Mst.
Ananti vs. Channu (supra), where it was
held that in cases where after trial of the
suit on all issues, the Court also holds that
it had no jurisdiction, the suit must be
dismissed and the plaint not returned. In
Lal Bahadur Singh and another (supra), the
case arose out of an order of the Appellate
Court where the Trial Court framed as many
as eight issues in a suit for declaration that the
plaintiffs were bhumidhars of the land, and the
revenue entry in favour of the defendants was
wrong. The Trial Court decided all issues and
also held that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was
dismissed. In appeal, the lower Appellate
Court did not examine the findings on other
issues, but merely dealt with the issue of
jurisdiction. Expressing agreement that the suit
was not triable by the Civil Court, the
Appellate Court set aside the decree of
dismissal, and substituted it by an order for the
return of plaint for presentation to the proper
Court. Two appeals, both by the plaintiffs and
the defendants, were carried to this Court from
the order for return of the plaint. It was in the
context of the said facts that this Court in Lal
Bahadur Singh and another (supra) held thus:

"6. The question that has been
canvassed before me is about the form of
8 All. Ram Phal Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.
547
the order that ought to be passed by the
Court in such cases. No difficulty arises
when an order for return of the plaint under
Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C., or of rejection of
the plaint under Rule 11, is passed. The real
difficulty arises in the other
cases.
According to Sri R.N. Singh, when once
the Court enters upon adjudication of all
the controversies of merit, the Court has no
option left but to finally determine all these
issues and if it finds that it has no
jurisdiction in the matter, it must dismiss
the suit instead of ordering return of the
plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
Sri Sankatha Rai, on the other hand,
contended that once the Civil Court finds
that it had no jurisdiction, it must stay its
hands at once and should order return of
the plaint without further venturing to
decide any other issue or to express its
opinion on merits. According to the
following rule laid down in Athmanath
Swami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami
Ayyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338:--

"When
the
Court
had
no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
suit, it cannot decide any question on
merits. It can simply decide on the question
of
jurisdiction
and
coming
to
the
conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over
the matter had to return the plaint." He
contended that return of the plaint was the
only proper course for the Court.

7. This case was referred to by
the learned single Judge who decided the
case of Devi Datt Sharma (1979 All LJ
1086) (supra) also. According to the
learned Judge where the Court, as a matter
of caution, records all findings on issues
touching merits of the controversy in
addition to the issue of jurisdiction, the
order has to be of return of plaint because
the other findings in such a case have no
legal effect. These are recorded only for
facilitating the higher Courts and avoidance
of a remand in case they come to a different
conclusion on the question of jurisdiction.
After briefly referring to the above
Supreme Court decision, the learned Judge
proceeded to consider an earlier Full Bench
decision of this Court in Smt. Ananti v.
Chhannu AIR 1930 All 193 and held that if
after going to the trial of the suit on all the
issues the Court ultimately holds that it had
no jurisdiction in the matter, it must result
in an order of dismissal of the suit. It may,
however, be mentioned here that in Smt.
Ananti's case, the controversy was raised in
an altogether different manner and the facts
were also quite different. There a suit had
been filed in the Civil Court and after the
written statement had been filed, the
Munsif entertained a serious doubt as to
whether the Civil Court could take
cognizance of the suit. He, therefore,
framed two questions and made a reference
to the High Court. It was while answering
the reference that the Full Bench had made
the following observations which are also
quoted by the learned Judge in his decision
(1979 All LJ 1086).

"The plaintiff chooses his forum
and files his suit. If he establishes the
correctness of his facts, he will get his
relief from the forum chosen. If he framed
his suit in a manner not warranted by facts
and goes for his relief to a Court which
cannot grant him relief, on the true facts, he
will have his suit dismissed. Then there
will be no question of returning the plaint
for presentation to the proper Court, for the
plaint, as framed, would not justify the
other kind of Court to grant him the relief.
But we are told that although the plaintiff
has chosen his forum rightly, the defendant,
if he so wishes, may, merely by saying
something in his defence-something the
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
correctness of which he need not take the
trouble to establish, oust the jurisdiction of
the Court and compel the plaintiff to go to
another Court."

8. What has been decided by the
Supreme Court in Devasthanam's case
(AIR 1965 SC 338) (supra) is that while
holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to
decide the particular suit, no decision on
merit on any point involved therein should
be made. It, however, does not lay down
that if the Court has no jurisdiction then it
had no right to dismiss the suit and must
necessarily direct return of the plaint for
presentation to the proper Court. The view
taken to the contrary in 1983 Rev. Dec. 185
: (AIR 1983 All 145), therefore, does not
appear to be wholly correct. In every case,
it has to be seen whether on the allegations
made in the plaint the suit was not
maintainable in the Civil Court if so, the
plaint had to be returned. But if the
question
of
jurisdiction
depends
on
decision of other questions on merit, then it
is not necessary that the Court should
always return the plaint. The Court has a
discretion either to dismiss the suit after
recording a finding that it had no
jurisdiction and may in appropriate cases
also direct return of the plaint without
dismissing the same. It will depend upon
the facts of each case and the broad
principles have been rightly laid down in
the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ananti's
case (supra). Applying the principles laid
down therein to the facts of the present
case, I find that the order passed by the
Court below was eminently justified and it
was not incumbent on the Court to have
dismissed the suit. The lower appellate
Court has rightly directed that the plaint
should be returned for presentation to the
proper Court after recording a finding that
the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the
matter."

(Emphasis by Court)

40. The point again arose before
their Lordships of the Supreme Court in
R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shree
Vallabh Glass Works Ltd14. The said
decision arose on an Appeal by Special
Leave from a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in a summary suit
brought for recovery of money on the
original side. Dealing with the defendant's
plea as to lack of territorial jurisdiction
with the Court at Bombay, the learned
Single Judge held that the suit was
maintainable at Bombay on reasoning
given in the learned Judge's judgment. On
Letters Patent Appeal to the Division
Bench, an Application seeking to amend
the plaint appears to have been brought in
order to give up some part of the cause of
action, that was beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court at Bombay. The
said Application was rejected and the
appeal allowed dismissing the suit. On the
plaintiff's Appeal by Special Leave, it was
held, thus, by their Lordships:

"7. ............. Even if there was any
doubt in the mind of the Division Bench,
the learned counsel for the plaintiff had
made a request for allowing him to amend
the plaint but such request was wrongly
refused by the learned Division Bench. The
Division Bench was totally wrong in
passing an order of dismissal of suit itself
when it had arrived to the conclusion that
the Bombay Court had no jurisdiction to try
the suit. The only course to be adopted in
such circumstances was to return the plaint
for presentation to the proper court and not
to dismiss the suit. .........."
8 All. Ram Phal Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.
549

(Emphasis by Court)

41. There is still another decision
of this Court in Mattukki and Ors. vs.
Rajwanti15, where again classification of
cases into two categories was approved;
one where the suit has been tried on all
issues the entire way, one of these being
about jurisdiction, which is not found with
the Court, and the other category being of
cases where the issue about jurisdiction is
considered at the earliest stage, looking to
the allegations in the plaint. This Court
held falling back on the Full Bench
decision in Mst. Ananti vs. Channu (supra)
and distinguishing the decision of their
Lordships
in
Sri
Athmanatha-swami
Devasthanam (supra), that suits where the
entire course of trial has gone through, it
would not be the proper course to order
return of the plaint, but to dismiss the suit
as done by the first Appellate Court. Of
course, to those conclusions, has been
added a further dimension that this
categorization of cases would be applicable
to those causes where the plea is based on
lack of jurisdiction as to subject matter, and
not where it relates to territorial or
pecuniary jurisdiction. It was held in
Mattukki and Ors. vs. Rajwanti (supra)
thus:

"15. The present case falls in the
second category where the first appellate
court upon deciding an issue between the
parties about their status which question
had a direct bearing on the question of
jurisdiction has found that the class of
Courts in the civil court would not have
Jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was not
the case where the territorial limits or the
pecuniary limits or the class of the Court
within civil court was involved. It was a
case where cancellation of the Will deed at
the instance of a plaintiff who was not
recorded in the revenue records and had not
filed any evidence or substantial evidence
to prove an interest in the property that the
civil court held that the class of civil courts
had no jurisdiction because the plaintiffs
interest and title was under a cloud and it
required a declaration from the competent
court. Therefore, under these circumstances
the discretion was exercised by the civil
court when the first appellate court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the
issue of lack of jurisdiction and did not
return the plaint for presentation before the
competent court because even the plaint as
it stood for cancellation of a Will deed
could not be entertained by the revenue
court.

16. The decision cited by Sri R.
N. Singh in the case of Athmanathaswami
Devasthanam (supra) relates to a case
where the suit was filed for recovery of
damages for use and occupation of the
land. The respondent therein was given
possession of the land by the previous
trustees of the Devasthanam trust and he
started claiming acquisition of the status of
ryot under Section 3(15) of the Madras
Estates Land Act and acquired permanent
rights of occupancy under Section 6 of the
said Act. In appeal the High Court
disagreed with the trial court and found that
the suit as presented could be instituted
only in the revenue court and civil court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the same
and, therefore, it ordered the return of the
plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
The
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
was
considering such a dispute and held that
when the Court has no jurisdiction over the
subject-matter of the suit it cannot decide
any question on merits. The question that
can be decided is only a question of
jurisdiction and if it comes a conclusion
that it had no jurisdiction over the matter it
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had to return the plaint which was on the
plain averments made therein cognizable
by another Court competent to entertain the
suit.

17. The decisions cited on behalf
of the respondents is with respect to the
two circumstances when the Court has to
return a plaint for presentation or exercise
its discretion to dismiss the suit on the
ground of having no jurisdiction. The
present case is one of the second category
where the question of jurisdiction depends
upon the averments in the plaint and other
questions on merit and the Court proceeded
to decide the other issue relating to the
claim of the plaintiff as not maintainable
before the civil court due to reasons given
therein and when the plaint as such could
not be maintainable before the revenue
court.

18. Once having decided the
locus of the plaintiff Phekani in relation to
the property and relationship of Gajadhar
and Smt. Sugani it found that the suit for
cancellation of the Will filed by the
plaintiff was not maintainable before the
civil court because the plaintiff first
required a declaration of her interest which
was possible only by the revenue courts.
The first appellate court dismissed the suit
in toto and did not order return of the
plaint. It has, therefore, to be seen whether
the plaint ought to have been returned
under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. in the
facts and circumstances or the discretion
exercised by the first appellate court by
dismissing the suit in toto without directing
return of plaint is proper or not.

19. As has already been indicated
above there are two categories of cases when a
jurisdictional issue is involved and the Courts
have to decide the same on the facts averred in
the plaint. The discretion is only in the second
category and in case the plaint allegations are
such as falls in the second category where no
issue of territorial limits or pecuniary limits or
class of Courts within the civil courts is
concerned the Court is free to exercise its
discretion. Therefore when in the present case
there was no issue of territorial limits or
pecuniary limits or the class of Courts in the
hierarchy of civil courts where the plaint could
be maintainable the issue falls squarely where
the Court has to consider the question of its
jurisdiction on the averments in the plaint only
after deciding the competence of the plaintiff to
maintain the suit. This was a suit for
cancellation of the Will deed by the plaintiff
who was not recorded in the revenue records
nor had filed any substantial evidence to
indicate any interest in the property in question.
Therefore, the plaintiff required to get a
declaration of her title and remove the cloud
over her relating to any right title or interest in
the property in question. Hence, the plaint as it
stood could not be returned since it would not
be cognizable by the revenue court."

42. The question has also been the
subject matter of a decision by the Chhattisgarh
High Court in Suryakant Gupta vs. B.L. Saraf
and another16, where in unequivocal terms, the
learned Judge has held that at any stage of the
proceeding once it is held that the Court had no
jurisdiction, the proper course is to make an
order for return of the plaint. In the aforesaid
decision, N.K. Agarwal, J. relied upon a Full
Bench decision of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in Prithvi Raj Jhingta vs. Gopal Singh17.
The decision of the Supreme Court in R.S.D.V.
Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was also relied on
by His Lordship. It was held in Suryakant
Gupta (supra) thus:

"10. The Full Bench of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh in case of
Prithvi Raj Jhingta v. Gopal Singh, [AIR
8 All. Ram Phal Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.
551
2007 Himachal Pradesh 11.] considering
the amended provision of Order XIV has
held, to eliminate delay and to ensure
expeditious disposal of the suits, both at the
stage of trial as well as at the appeal stage,
the legislature decided to provide for a
mechanism
whereby,
subject
to
all
exception created under sub-rule (2), all
issues, both of law and fact were required
to be decided together and the suit had to
be disposed of as a whole, of course based
upon the findings of the Trial Court on all
the issues, both of law and fact.

11. Order XTV of C.P.C. has to
be read along with Order VII, Rule 10 of
C.P.C. As per explanation of Order VII,
Rule 10(I), the Court of Appeal or Revision
may direct, after setting aside the decree
passed in a suit, return of the plaint. Even if
the Court had recorded findings on all
issues including the issue of jurisdiction,
proper course open for the Court is to
return the plaint for its presentation to
proper Court. Therefore, ratio of law laid
down by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh in Prithvi Raj Jhingta's (supra) case
is of no help to the respondents in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. For
the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court is
not sustainable in law. Therefore, the
appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree
impugned is set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the Trial Court for return
of plaint to the plaintiff in terms of
provisions contained in Order VII, Rule 10
of C.P.C. Parties are directed to appear
before the Trial Court on 2.5.2011. Record
of the Trial Court shall be sent back
forthwith."

43. A consideration of all the
authorities on this seemingly debatable
point are preponderant that in a case where
the Court at any stage of the proceeding
finds that the suit is not triable by it, the
proper order to make is one for return of
the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC,
and not one of dismissal of the suit, or any
kind of a decision on merits. The guidance
of their Lordships of the Supreme Court,
and as already said preponderant authority,
certainly not in consensus, is that it does
not matter whether the suit has gone
through trial the whole way, or has reached
the stage of appeal or second appeal. What
is relevant is that lack of jurisdiction once
determined at any stage, ought to lead to an
order for return of the plaint with no
determination on merits made. The other
view which seems to be not largely
subscribed is based on the Full Bench
decision in Mst. Ananti vs. Channu (supra).
It would be well to remember that the
statutory context in which the Full Bench in
Mst. Ananti vs. Channu (supra), decided
way-back in 1930, was a differently
phrased provision of the Code of Civil
Procedure, much different from the way it
is now worded after the Amendment Act of
1976. The most significant change that the
1976 Amendment has brought about is the
addition of the explanation. The added
explanation makes it explicit that the power
to return can be exercised by virtue of the
added explanation by the Court of appeal or
revision, after setting aside the decree
passed in the suit and by substituting it with
an order for return of the plaint. The
addition of the explanation brought about
by CPC Amendment Act 104 of 1976 is of
great significance. The purpose of an
explanation is clarificatory. It is expressive
of the legislative intent, where doubt has
arisen in the application of a statute.

5. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in EXL
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services (P)
Ltd., (2020) 12 SCC 667 : 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 621 and its relevant paragraph
Nos. 15 and 16 are reproduced hereinafter
:-

"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.

16. We find no contradiction in the
law as laid down in Modern Construction
[ONGC v. Modern Construction & Co.,
(2014) 1 SCC 648 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 617]
pronounced after consideration of the law and
precedents requiring reconsideration in view
of any conflict with Joginder Tuli [Joginder
Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502] .
Modern Construction [ONGC v. Modern
Construction & Co., (2014) 1 SCC 648 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 617] lays down the
correct law. We answer the reference
accordingly"

6. In the aforesaid circumstances,
question framed is answered in following
terms that once a Court come to the
conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the suit, the plaint has to be
returned back and the said Court may not go
into the other issues and if plaint is presented
in the Competent Court, the suit will be
decided De Novo by granting benefit of
Article 14 of Limitation Act.

7. In the present case, it is not much
under dispute that learned Trial Court has
in a very specific manner has held that
the said Court has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the suit and the Competent
Court would be the Court of Revenue,
however, after returning the said finding,
learned
Trial
Court
erroneously
proceeded to decide other issues which
were
unwarranted
and
legally
not
permissible and dismissed the suit and
appeal
filed
by
plaintiff
was
also
dismissed without taking note of legal
error committed by learned Trial Court.
8 All. Shipra Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I
accepts the argument raised by learned
Senior Counsel for appellants and rejects
the argument raised by learned counsel for
respondents for some of legal heirs, since
he was failed to show any judgment
contrary of position of law on the issue as
referred above.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
present Second Appeal is allowed and
learned Trial Court is directed to return the
plaint and it is now up to appellants to
present it before the Competent Court.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 553
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 960 of
2024
&
Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 21609 of
2021

Shipra Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Paavan Awasthi, Bhanu Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Ram Kumar
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
lack
of
proper
implementation of the Integrated Child
Development Services (ICDS) Scheme,
resulting in malnutrition of pregnant
women, lactating mothers, and children
aged six months to six years, and
compliance
with
the
National
Food
Security Act, 2013.

Headnotes
Public Interest Litigation - ICDS Scheme -
Implementation - Statutory Mandate -
State bound to ensure compliance with
Sections 4, 5 and Schedule II of the
National
Food
Security
Act,
2013
-
Procurement Process - Transparency -
States must follow General Financial
Rules, 2017 and Vigilance Guidelines in
procurement of Take-Home Ration (THR) -
Empowerment of women SHGs must not
violate statutory mandates - Supply of dry
ration in place of THR and hot cooked
meal impermissible under Act and Rules -
State to ensure accuracy on Poshan
Tracker and compliance with statutory
norms.
Held: State shall ensure complete compliance
with Sections 4, 5 and Schedule II of the
National Food Security Act, 2013 in a timebound manner - Procurement and supply of
THR and hot cooked meals shall conform strictly
to Rules, 2022, General Financial Rules, 2017,
and Vigilance Guidelines - Supply of dry ration in
place of THR or hot cooked meals is not
permissible - State must empower SHGs
genuinely,
ensuring
participation
of
Gram
Panchayats without compromising statutory
norms - Poshan Tracker data shall be accurate
and consistent with Anganwadi records - Copy
of the 3-Member Committee Report to be
forwarded to the Ministry of Women & Child
Development for verification and corrective
measures - order dated 20.02.2025, affirmed by
the Supreme Court, shall form part of this
judgment
for
necessary
guidance.
(Paras
65,66,80,81,82) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Maa Santhoshi Swa Sahayata Samuh v. Union of
India, W.P.(C) No. 5063 of 2021; Renuka
Mata Mahila Bachat Gat v. State of Maharashtra,
W.P. No. 5942 of 202.

List of Acts
National Food Security Act, 2013; Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006; Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006;
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; General
Financial Rules, 2017; Supplementary Nutrition