Allowed¶16

Amarjeet Kumar v. Pinki Devi

Patna HC19 Mar 2026MA/422/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court MA No.422 of 2024, decided 19-03-2026 (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.; Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.). Keywords: territorial jurisdiction; maintainability; dismissal for want of jurisdiction; Order 7 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 10A CPC; return of plaint to applicant; Order 14 Rule 2 CPC; Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2018; Family Court Hajipur Vaishali; decision in absence of applicant; impugned order dated 02.04.2024 set aside; appeal allowed and matter remitted to trial court to decide all issues together and dispose on merit. No precedent cases discussed; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment/order dated 02.04.2024 set aside; trial court directed to take up maintainability along with all other issues as directed in Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and dispose of the case on merit after hearing both parties.

Amarjeet Kumar Vs Pinki Devi — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Could an issue of maintainability (territorial jurisdiction) of Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2018 properly be decided in the absence of the applicant? +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

An issue of maintainability cannot properly be decided in the absence of the applicant; on the date of dismissal of the guardianship case the petitioner/father was not present.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 10A CPC, a suit filed in a wrong forum having no territorial jurisdiction is not to be dismissed outright; the plaint is to be returned to the applicant to file the same in the appropriate court. The trial court dismissed the guardianship case without invoking those provisions.

¶15

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 02.04.2024 is bad in law and cannot be sustained; the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.ratio¶16
The learned trial court is directed to take up the issue of maintainability along with all other issues as directed in Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and dispose of the case on merit after hearing both parties.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous Appeal (Patna High Court, per Bibek Chaudhuri, J., coram also Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.), decided 19-03-2026: The Family Court, Hajipur at Vaishali had dismissed Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2018 by order dated 02.04.2024 on the ground of maintainability for want of territorial jurisdiction, although the petitioner/father (applicant) was absent on the date of dismissal. Held: an issue of maintainability cannot be decided in the absence of the applicant; and where a suit is filed in a wrong forum having no territorial jurisdiction, Order 7 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 10A CPC applies - the plaint is to be returned to the applicant to file it in the appropriate court, not dismissed outright. The trial court had bypassed those provisions and directly dismissed the case. The impugned order was held bad in law and unsustainable; the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2024 set aside, and the trial court directed to take up the maintainability issue along with all other issues as directed in Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and dispose of the case on merit after hearing both parties.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.422 of 2024

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Amarjeet Kumar son of Late Jailal Rai resident of village- Gorigama, P.O. and P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali.

¶4

... ... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pinki Devi wife of Amarjeet Rai, daughter of Shyam Babu Raii resident of Gorigama, P.O. and P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali, Naihari address village and P.O. Kajari Buzurg, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali, presently wife of Manoj Kumar resident of village Biddilpur Sarai, P.S. and P.O.- Patori, District Samastipur.

¶7

... ... Respondent/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Prakash Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

¶10

7 19-03-2026

¶11

Heard learned advocate on behalf of the appellant and learned advocate on behalf of the respondent.

¶12

The instant appeal challenges the order dated 02.04.2024, where by and where under Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2018 was dismissed on the ground of maintainability for want of territorial jurisdiction.

¶13

On perusal of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hajipur at Vaishali, this Court finds that on the date of dismissal of guardianship case, the petitioner/father was not present. We fail to understand that how an issue of maintainability can be

¶14

Patna High Court MA No.422 of 2024(7) dt.19-03-2026 2/2

¶15

decided in the absence of the applicant of Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2018, moreover, under the provision of Order 7 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 10A, a suit cannot be held to be maintainable, if it is filed in a wrong forum having no territorial jurisdiction. In that case, plaint be returned to the applicant to file the same in appropriate court. Without the provision contained in Rule 10 and Rule 10A of Order 7, the learned trial court directly dismissed the guardianship case holding inter-alia that same is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.

¶16

The impugned order is bad in law and cannot be sustained, accordingly, we allow the instant appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2024 and direct the learned trial court to take up the issue of maintainability along with all other issues as directed in Order 14 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and dispose of the same on merit after hearing both the parties.

¶17

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶18

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶19

Sudha/-

¶20

Amarjeet Kumar v. Pinki Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjeet Kumar v. Pinki Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dudheshwar Sharma Vs Kumari Punam

Manoj Kumar @ Munna Vs Nita Bharti

Pappu Kumar Vs Nippu Devi

Bishwas Paswan Vs Sri Ram Paswan

Namo Narayan Choubey Vs Priyanka Devi @ Babli

Tanuja Sinha Vs Pankaj Yadav