2013 (10) TMI 1508 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Mehsana.
2. Entitlement to interest from the date of filing the suit at Mehsana.
3. Applicability of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
5. Executing Court's authority to go behind the decree.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Mehsana:
The High Court of Gujarat held that the Civil Court at Mehsana did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the Respondent. Consequently, the judgment and decrees passed by the Mehsana court were set aside, and the plaints were ordered to be returned to the Respondent for presentation before the appropriate court having jurisdiction.

2. Entitlement to Interest from the Date of Filing the Suit at Mehsana:
The Respondent claimed interest for the period from 1986 to 1999, during which the suit was pending before the Mehsana court. The High Court allowed this claim, holding that the Respondent was entitled to interest from the date of institution of the suit at Mehsana. However, the Supreme Court held that once the plaint was presented before the Civil Court at Surat, it was a fresh suit and could not be considered a continuation of the suit instituted at Mehsana. Therefore, the Respondent could not claim interest for the period when the suit was pending before the Mehsana court.

3. Applicability of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Supreme Court clarified that the return of the plaints by the Mehsana court was in accordance with Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates the return of a plaint if the court finds it has no jurisdiction. The High Court's order to return the plaints was not a transfer of the suit but a return for presentation before the competent court.

4. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:
The Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, a plaintiff is entitled to exclude the time during which he prosecuted the suit before a court having no jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that the suit continues from the date of its original filing. Instead, the suit is considered fresh upon its presentation before the competent court.

5. Executing Court's Authority to Go Behind the Decree:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In this case, the Executing Court correctly observed that the Respondent was entitled to interest only from the date of filing the suit at Surat, not from the date of filing at Mehsana. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Respondent could not take advantage of its own mistake of filing the suit in a court without jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and decree. The judgments and orders of the Trial/Executing Court and the Appellate Court were restored, and it was held that the Respondent was not entitled to interest for the period when the suit was pending before the Mehsana court.