Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC | Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction Requires Return, Not Rejection, of Plaint; Parties May Choose One Among Multiple Competent Courts: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Vrindavan Infra Solutions v. GHW World Associates & Developers India Private Limited and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 August 2026
Citation: CR No. 6076 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an objection to territorial jurisdiction does not, by itself, constitute a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. If the court ultimately finds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction, the proper course is to return the plaint for presentation before the competent court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, rather than reject it under Rule 11.
The Court further held that where two or more courts otherwise possess jurisdiction, the contracting parties may validly confer exclusive jurisdiction upon one of them. Such a clause neither violates public policy nor attracts Sections 23 or 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement upon a court having no independent jurisdictional nexus with the dispute.
Summary: GHW World Associates & Developers India Private Limited instituted a commercial suit at Gurugram seeking recovery of ₹56,68,758, along with costs and pendente lite and future interest at 5% per month. The claim arose from a Fee Confirmation Agreement dated 23 March 2022, under which the plaintiff was to receive a fee for facilitating the leasing of a warehouse situated in Lucknow. The agreement was subsequently attorned in favour of Vrindavan Infra Solutions, which allegedly accepted the contractual liabilities and made certain payments under an agreed instalment arrangement before committing defaults.
Vrindavan Infra Solutions sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. It contended that the Commercial Court at Gurugram lacked territorial jurisdiction because the defendants resided or carried on business at Lucknow and the cause of action had also arisen there. The Commercial Court rejected the application, following which the defendant approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed that the Fee Confirmation Agreement expressly recorded that it had been executed at Gurugram. Its Clause 11 further provided that the courts at Gurugram would have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or related to the agreement. The agreement’s execution at Gurugram constituted a part of the cause of action under Section 20(c) CPC and supplied the necessary jurisdictional nexus. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause did not attempt to confer authority upon an otherwise incompetent court.
The Court also noted that the Letter of Attornment transferred the duties, liabilities, terms and conditions of the original agreement to Vrindavan Infra Solutions. When the agreement and the Letter of Attornment were read together, the objection to Gurugram’s jurisdiction could not justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and upheld the Commercial Court’s order refusing to reject the plaint. It found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.