Article 227 Petition Dismissed; Commercial Court Rightly Directed to First Decide Application Under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC Before Considering Plaintiff’s Amendment Plea
Allahabad: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that where the very jurisdiction of a court is under challenge, the issue of jurisdiction must be decided before considering an application seeking amendment of the plaint. The Court observed that a plaintiff cannot use an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to cure a defect relating to the very foundation of the court’s jurisdiction.
The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal on 08 October 2026 in Matters Under Article 227 No. 13309 of 2026, M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. vs Anugya Gupta and Another. The Court dismissed the petition filed by M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Varanasi, whereby the Court had directed that the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC would be considered before the plaintiff’s application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. before the Commercial Court, Varanasi. The plaintiff had instituted Original Suit No. 2 of 2025 seeking relief against the defendants concerning alleged use of the trademarks:
- “Sarkari Result”;
- “sarkariexam.com”; and
- domain name “sarkariresult.com”.
The suit was filed under Section 134 read with Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff sought:
- Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the said trademarks;
- Mandatory injunction directing discontinuation of use of the domain name and social media platforms.
Interim Injunction Proceedings
During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application seeking temporary injunction. The Commercial Court allowed the injunction application on 12.06.2025. The defendants challenged the order before the Division Bench by filing Commercial Appeal No. 24 of 2025. The appeal was dismissed on 23.09.2025. Thereafter, the defendants approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 38597 of 2025. The Supreme Court, on 16.01.2026, stayed the operation of the orders dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Commercial Court and 23.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench.
Application Under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC
On 23.03.2026, the defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The defendants raised objections regarding:
- Jurisdiction of the Commercial Court;
- Return of plaint for presentation before the appropriate court;
- Rejection of plaint on grounds available under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The defendants argued that the plaint did not satisfy the requirements necessary for the Commercial Court to exercise jurisdiction. During the pendency of this application, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint on 09.08.2026. The Commercial Court, by order dated 13.08.2026, directed that the application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC would be decided first. Aggrieved by this direction, the plaintiff approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments Before the High Court
Petitioner’s Submissions
Senior Advocate Mr. Rahul Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. It was argued that the amendment application only sought to incorporate the specific value of the suit, which according to the plaintiff was ₹5,00,000/-. The petitioner contended that the amendment application should be decided before considering the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC. It was argued that if the plaint was returned or rejected, the plaintiff would still have the option of filing a fresh suit under Order VII Rule 13 CPC, which would unnecessarily prolong litigation.
Reliance was placed upon:
- Suchitra Dubey vs Sattar and Others;
- Neera Misra vs Rakesh Chandra Misra;
- Dera Baba Bhumman Shah Sangar Sarista vs Subhash Narula.
Respondents’ Submissions
The respondents opposed the petition and supported the order passed by the Commercial Court. It was submitted that the issue involved was not a mere procedural defect but related to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court itself. The respondents argued that:
- The plaint did not disclose the specified value required under the Commercial Courts Act;
- The Commercial Court could not assume jurisdiction unless the statutory requirements were fulfilled;
- The issue of jurisdiction must be decided before considering any amendment application.
Reliance was placed upon various judgments dealing with jurisdiction and Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC.
High Court Examines Legal Position
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal first examined the relevant provisions of the CPC and Commercial Courts Act. The Court considered:
- Section 16 CPC;
- Section 20 CPC;
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC;
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC;
- Order VII Rule 13 CPC.
The Court noted that:
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC deals with return of plaint for presentation before the proper court.
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC provides grounds for rejection of plaint.
- Order VII Rule 13 CPC clarifies that rejection of plaint does not prevent filing of a fresh plaint on the same cause of action.
Requirement of Specified Value Under Commercial Courts Act
The Court also examined provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, “specified value” is defined in relation to commercial disputes. The Court noted that after amendment, a commercial suit would not be maintainable unless the subject matter satisfied the statutory threshold of specified value. The Court further considered:
- Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, which provides jurisdiction of Commercial Courts;
- Section 12, which provides the manner for determination of specified value.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Stands on Different Footing
The High Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs DLF Universal Ltd. The Court observed that jurisdiction can broadly be classified into:
- Territorial jurisdiction;
- Pecuniary jurisdiction;
- Subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court noted that territorial and pecuniary objections may be required to be raised at an appropriate stage. However, subject-matter jurisdiction stands on a different footing. Where a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it cannot adjudicate the dispute, and an order passed without such jurisdiction would be a nullity.
Amendment Cannot Create Jurisdiction
The central question before the High Court was whether the plaintiff’s amendment application should be decided before the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC. The Court observed that normally courts adopt a liberal approach while considering amendment applications. However, the present case involved a challenge to the very jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. The Court noted that at the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff had not disclosed the specified value of the subject matter.
Only after the defendants raised objections regarding jurisdiction through the application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC did the plaintiff file an amendment application seeking to incorporate such details. The Court held that an amendment which seeks to introduce essential facts necessary to establish jurisdiction cannot be treated as a simple correction of pleadings. Such an amendment affects the very foundation and character of the suit.
Reliance on Previous Judicial Decisions
The High Court considered judgments cited by both sides. The Court referred to decisions where courts had held that amendment applications may be considered before Order VII Rule 11 CPC applications.
However, the Court distinguished those cases from the present matter. The Court observed that the present dispute involved a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, not merely a procedural defect.
The Court relied upon decisions including:
- HSIL Ltd. vs Imperial Ceramic & Ors.;
- Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP vs Gregory & Nicholas & Ors.;
- Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. vs Lalit Bhasin.
The Court observed that a court lacking inherent jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself through amendment of pleadings.
High Court’s Final Findings
After examining the facts and legal position, the High Court concluded that the Commercial Court had correctly directed that the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC should be considered first. The Court held:
- The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter;
- A court without jurisdiction cannot pass orders allowing amendment to bring the suit within its jurisdiction;
- The amendment application could be considered only after deciding the jurisdiction issue.
Final Order
The High Court dismissed the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Varanasi. The Court further directed:
- The Commercial Court was justified in deciding the application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC first;
- The amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC would be considered thereafter in accordance with law.
No order was passed as to costs.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
The judgment provides important guidance regarding the relationship between:
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC (amendment of pleadings);
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC (return of plaint);
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC (rejection of plaint);
- Jurisdiction of Commercial Courts.
The Court has clarified that while amendment of pleadings is generally encouraged to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, such power cannot be exercised to create jurisdiction where the court does not possess it. The judgment reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is foundational. Before allowing amendments that affect the court’s authority to entertain a dispute, the court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s decision in M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. vs Anugya Gupta and Another reiterates that jurisdictional objections must receive priority where they go to the root of the matter. The Court balanced two important principles of civil procedure: the liberal approach towards amendments and the fundamental requirement that every court must act within its jurisdiction. By holding that the Commercial Court must first decide the application under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC, the High Court ensured that a court lacking jurisdiction does not proceed with adjudication merely because an amendment application is pending.
The judgment serves as a reminder that procedural amendments cannot be used as a mechanism to retrospectively create jurisdiction.
LawDaily.org | Legal Updates | Civil Procedure & Commercial Court Judgments