Gyanendra Nanda Vs Chairman, Steel Authority of India, New Delhi

2. The appellant in this 2^nd Appeal was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007 and appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.24/2022.

¶21

The respondents in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendants

¶22

before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007 and respondents before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.24/2022. 3. The suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.48/2007 before the learned Trial Court was a suit for specific performance of contract.

¶23

As per the case of the plaintiff, he (plaintiff) along with the defendant No.4 (respondent No.4 in this 2^nd Appeal) are brother and sister respectively. The defendant No.4 (respondent No.4 in this 2^nd Appeal) is the elder sister of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff i.e. Bibhuti Bhusan Nanda was an employee in the Fire Service Department under the Steel Authority of India in short “SAIL” at Rourkela in the district of Sundargarh. When the father of the plaintiff and

¶24

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶25

Page 2 of 14

¶26

defendant No.4 i.e. Bibhuti Bhusan Nanda declared unfit by the Medical Board of SAIL, Rourkela, then, on such ground, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 was relieved from his service w.e.f. 16.01.1986 on the ground of medically unfit. At the time of relieve of the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 from his service in SAIL, the plaintiff was a 10 years old boy and he was physically handicapped as per the medical certificate issued by the CDMO, Angul and his percentage of handicapness was 51%. For which, his sister i.e. defendant No.4 was employed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in lieu of the service of her father in SAIL with a condition as per a declaration/agreement dated 31.10.1986 that, she (defendant No.4) shall provide 1/3^rd share of her monthly salary to the plaintiff in each month for his maintenance till her retirement and even after retirement, she (defendant No.4) shall pay 1/3^rd of her P.F., Gratuity and Pension to the plaintiff and she (defendant No.4) shall not violate the above terms and conditions of her declaration. On the basis of the above conditions made in the agreement dated

¶27

31.10.1986, the defendant No.4 had joined in her service. Subsequent to the joining of the defendant No.4 in her service

¶28

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶29

Page 3 of 14

¶30

at SAIL, Rourkela, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 expired in the year, 1998. When in spite of the above conditions in the agreement dated 31.10.1986, the defendant

¶31

did not pay anything to the plaintiff and violated the terms and conditions of that agreement, then, the plaintiff forced to live in distress. So, the plaintiff intimated the same to the Steel Authority of India, Rourkela stating about the noncompliance of the undertakings of the agreement dated 31.10.1986 by the defendant No.4 for providing 1/3^rd share of her monthly salary to the plaintiff, but the SAIL Authorities did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff. Then, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the learned Trial Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007 against the defendants praying for directing the defendants including the defendant No.4 to pay 1/3^rd of the monthly salary of the defendant No.4 to the plaintiff for his maintenance making them (defendants) jointly and severally liable for the same.

¶32

4. Having been noticed in the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 were set ex parte.

¶33

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶34

Page 4 of 14

¶35

The defendant No.4 contested the suit of the plaintiff by

¶36

filing her Written Statement denying the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff taking her stands therein that,

¶37

“there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit against her (defendant No.4). The suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. The learned Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff, as the said matter is not within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court at Angul, because, the disturbances between her and the plaintiff is at Rourkela in the District of Sundargarh. She (defendant No.4) is serving as an Attendant in the General Ispat Hospital, Rourkela. She (defendant No.4) is a married lady and the plaintiff has no absolute right over her salary. She (defendant No.4) had/has given a room to the plaintiff for his residential purpose and cash of Rs.10,000/- for his maintenance in each month. The plaintiff is residing with her (defendant No.4) in the same premises and she (defendant No.4) has not violated any condition of the agreement. The plaintiff is also enjoying their all the movable and immovable ancestral properties at village Talamul. When she (defendant No.4) opposed to the selling of the joint ancestral properties by the plaintiff, then, out of such grudge, the plaintiff has instituted the suit falsely against her. He (plaintiff) is a leprosy patient and he is a questionable character. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.”

¶38

5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 5 numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide

¶39

C.S. No.48/2007 and the said issues are:

¶40

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶41

Page 5 of 14

¶42

ISSUES

¶43

1. Is the suit maintainable?

¶44

2. Was there any cause of action to file the suit?

¶45

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/3^rd salary from the salary of defendant No.4?

¶46

4. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

¶47

5. To any other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

¶48

6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants, the plaintiff examined him as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 3.

¶49

Whereas, none of the defendants including the defendant No.4 examined any witness on their behalf and they also did not file or prove any document from their side.

¶50

7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered issue No.1 relating to the maintainability of the suit before the learned Trial Court at Angul and answered the same against the plaintiff observing that,

¶51

“the learned Trial Court at Angul has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit there. For which, the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007 filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Because, the place of establishment of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 is at Rourkela. Not only the defendant No.4 is residing at Rourkela but she is also serving there and getting salary from the defendant Nos.1 to 3 at Rourkela. In the event, the

¶52

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶53

Page 6 of 14

¶54

plaintiff will succeed in the suit, the payment will be made from Rourkela. Therefore, by mere residing of the plaintiff within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court at Angul does not confer any power upon the learned Trial Court to entertain the suit, more particularly, in absence of the written agreement. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest on the above preliminary issue framed in issue No.1 without answering the others issues as per its Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2012 and 06.09.2012 respectively.”

¶55

8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and

¶56

Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.48/2007 passed by the learned Trial Court on the ground of its maintainability due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff challenged the same preferring the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.24 of 2022 being the appellant against the defendants arraying them (defendants) as respondents.

¶57

After hearing from both sides, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed to that 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.24/2022 of the plaintiff-appellant on contest as per its Judgment and Decree dated 10.11.2023 and 23.11.2023 respectively concurring/confirming the aforesaid findings and

¶58

observations made by the learned Trial Court in issue No.1

¶59

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶60

Page 7 of 14

¶61

holding that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

¶62

9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiff challenged the same by preferring this 2^nd Appeal being the appellant against the defendants arraying them (defendants) as respondents.

¶63

10. This 2^nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law i.e.

¶64

I. Whether the Courts below were correct in disposing of the matter without referring to the provision under Order 7, Rule 10-A of the CPC, 1908?

¶65

11. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶66

12. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, both the Courts i.e. the learned Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that, the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.48/2007 is not maintainable before the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Angul and the said suit was entertainable before its

¶67

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶68

Page 8 of 14

¶69

proper jurisdictional Court at Rourkela. For which, the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007 filed by the plaintiff is not entertainable under law due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

¶70

13. Now it will be seen that, when the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in their respective Judgments & Decrees dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.48/2007 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, then, as per law, what was the duty of the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court.

¶71

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court and Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:

¶72

I. In a case between R.S.D.V Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vallabh Glass Works Limited reported in AIR 1993 (SC) 2094 that, if the 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.

¶73

II. In a case between Sheela Devi & Others Vs. Harbhajan Lal reported in 2016 (4) Civ.C.C 653 (HP), that, when the Court is concluding that, the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in that case, recording of findings on merit not permissible, but only course open to the Court is to return the

¶74

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶75

Page 9 of 14

¶76

plaint to be presented before the proper forum in accordance with the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908.

¶77

III. In a case between Hamburg Sud Vs. Riba Textiles (P) Ltd. & Others reported in 2013 (2) Civ.C.C. 650 (P & H) that, when the Courts finds that the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, then, as per the provisions of law envisaged in Section 20 read with Order 7, Rule 10-A of the CPC, 1908 the said Court is competent to forward the plaint to be filed in the Court it finds has the jurisdiction.

¶78

IV. In a case between Chandra Prem Shah Vs. K. Raheja Universal reported in 2015 (4) Civ.C.C. 381 (Bombay) that, if a suit is wrongly filed in the Court, then that Court should return to it to the Court, where it should have been instituted, because Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 is applicable in that case and can be invoked only when there is another Court which has jurisdiction to try the suit. If no such forum is available, then, the rule is not applicable.

¶79

V. In a case between Molugu Ram Reddy & Others Vs.

¶80

Molugu Vittal Reddy & Others reported in 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 0809 (A.P.) Full Bench that, the Court may return plaint for presentation before proper Court at any stage of suit, even at the stage of appeal or revision.

¶81

VI. In a case between Neeta Chadha & Others Vs. Phullan Rani & Others reported in 2012 (1) Civil Court Cases 408 (P & H) that, suit for declaration in respect of immovable property—Filed in a Court having no jurisdiction—However, parties led their entire evidence—To avoid unnecessary expenses and delay

¶82

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶83

Page 10 of 14

¶84

suit transferred to Court of competent jurisdiction who shall decide the suit on the basis of pleadings, evidence and documents already on record, from a stage immediately prior to the final Judgment and Decree.

¶85

14. Here in this matter at hand, when it is the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court that, the learned Trial Court at Angul has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the said suit is entertainable before its jurisdictional Court at Rourkela, then, at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it was the duty of the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court to pass the Judgement/Order/Direction to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation of the same before the proper jurisdictional Court i.e. in the Court learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Rourkela instead of dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, but the learned Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court have not done so. For which, there is justification under law for making intereference with the same

¶86

through this 2^nd Appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

¶87

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶88

Page 11 of 14

¶89

Therefore, the impugned Judgments & Decrees passed by

¶90

the learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in C.S. No.48/2007 and R.F.A. No.24/2022 respectively are liable to be set aside.

¶91

15. As such, there is some merit in this 2^nd Appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff. The same is to be allowed in part.

¶92

16. Therefore, the Judgment & Decree passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007 and the Judgment & Decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court in R.F.A. No.24/2022 are liable to be set aside and the learned Trial Court is to be directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff as per the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 and Order 7, Rule 10-A of the CPC, 1908 for the presentation of the same before the proper jurisdictional Court i.e. in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Rourkela.

¶93

The law relating to the procedures for the return of the plaint and the duties of the learned Trial Court at the time of returning plaint has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

¶94

I. In a case between Simi Salim Vs. M/s. Tip Top Furniture Industries reported in 2016 (3) Civ.C.C.

¶95

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶96

Page 12 of 14

¶97

64 (Kerla) that, when a plaint is ordered to be returned as per the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908—want of jurisdiction—In that case, the Court shall return the plaint, Vakalat and the documents filed by the plaintiff. However, the Court shall not return the written statement and documents filed by other parties to the plaintiff.

¶98

17. When as per the discussions and observations made above, it is held that, this 2^nd Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff is to be allowed in part and the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside, then, at this juncture, there is no other alternative for this Appellate Court but to allow this 2^nd Appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff in part.

¶99

18. In result, this 2^nd appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff is allowed in part on contest.

¶100

The Judgments & Decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court in the suit vide C.S. No.48/2007 and R.F.A. No.24 of 2022 respectively are set aside.

¶101

19. The learned Trial Court is directed to return the plaint, Vakalatnama and documents of the plaintiff in the suit vide

¶102

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶103

Page 13 of 14

¶104

C.S. No.48/2007 to the plaintiff within 7 days from the date of production of the certified copy of this Judgment through proper substitution of the copies thereof intimating the plaintiff and the contesting defendant No.4 thereof for the presentation of the same in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela fixing the date of appearance of the parties in that suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rourkela on its representation indicating other criterias as per law envisaged in Order 7, Rule 10 and Order 7 and Rule 10-A of the CPC, 1908.

¶105

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶106

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 13^th May, 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer

¶107

Signature Not Verified

¶108

Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2026 21:39:23

¶109

R.S.A. No.38 of 2024

¶110

Page 14 of 14

Gyanendra Nanda v. Chairman, Steel Authority of India, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Nanda v. Chairman, Steel Authority of India, New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dillip Kumar Giri Vs the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar

Lipina Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Prabhat Kumar Baksi Vs Swarnaprava Das

Kunjalata Rout Vs Mrutyunjaya Tripathy,Oas, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

Suprava Arana Vs State and Ors.

Biswa Ranjan Dhal Vs Dibyashree Mallick, Addl. Tahasildar,Bhubaneswar