Civil Suits in Property Disputes and the Order of Priority of Applications Filed under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Civil Suits in Property Disputes and the Order of Priority of Applications Filed under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

In an important Judgment, issue of application under Order VII Rule 11 and the one made under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

It was held that the appropriate approach would be to examine, whether the Court lacks inherent or subject matter jurisdiction. If such a contention is raised and the Court prima facie finds such contention worthy of consideration, the Court may decide to hear the application for rejection of the Plaint first as the Court may then lack jurisdiction to consider the prayer for amendment in the Plaint also. In all other cases, the application for amendment ought to be decided before considering the prayer for rejection of the Plaint.

Priority of Applications 

If the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction, then the question whether the Court lacking jurisdiction could entertain an application for amendment of the plaint would warrant adjudication. In that context, it has been enunciated that the correct procedure that the Court ought to follow would be to examine the plaint as it stood when filed, and consider whether on a holistic reading of the plaint, the Court totally lacked or inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Lack of inherent or Subject matter jurisdiction

A slightly different consideration may be required to be bestowed where the rejection of the Plaint is sought on the ground that the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. In such a situation a question may arise whether the Court lacking in inherent jurisdiction would be competent to decide an application for amendment in the Plaint. If it is a case of lack of inherent or subject matter jurisdiction, it could be urged that the application for the rejection of the Plaint be determined first as the Court lacking in inherent or subject matter jurisdiction may not have the jurisdictional competence to even delve into the question of amendment in the Plaint. 

Case : Pyramid Alliance LLP v. Karan Celista A Wing Cooperative Housing Society Ltd [2026] GCtR 346 (Bombay)