A Court That Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction, Can’t Be Allowed To Confer Itself With Jurisdiction By Amendment Of Pleadings: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court reiterated that while territorial jurisdiction is tied to the geographical area where a Court is competent to exercise its function, subject-matter jurisdiction has to do with the nature of the dispute.
The Bombay High Court held that a court that does not have jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to confer itself with jurisdiction by way of an amendment of pleadings.
The Court dismissed Writ Petition which invoked the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 as well as Article 227 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court. The Petitioner also sought a consequential direction for the Trial Court to decide the Application for amendment of the petition filed by the plaintiff prior to any other applications filed in relation to the suit and interim relief for a stay of further proceedings.
A Single Bench of Justice Nivedita P Mehta held, “Further, the Court seized with the suit has to examine whether the essential ingredients that would invite the jurisdiction of the court are disclosed, and if it is found that such ingredients are missing, it would render the court lacking in jurisdiction. A court that does not have jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to confer itself with jurisdiction by way of an amendment of pleadings.”
Advocate Nigel Da Costa Frias appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Shivan Desai represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner entered into an oral agreement with the Respondent Company for the purchase of a property for the purpose of developing the business. After due diligence, the Petitioner agreed to forgo a formal agreement and proceed directly to execute and register a Deed of Sale. Based on the confirmation from the Petitioner’s lawyer, the Petitioner paid the stamp duty, registration charges, mutation fees and tatkal charges.
However, the Petitioner’s lawyer later informed the them that he was unable to contact respondent no.3 whose presence in Goa was necessary for the registration of the Deed of Sale. Despite multiple attempts to reschedule, the Respondents did not make themselves available. The Petitioner contended that this wilful failure to come forth and conclude the Sale in terms, orally agreed upon constitutes breach of the oral agreement of sale.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, "Secondly, there exists a distinction between the subject-matter jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of a Court of law that this court must bear in mind. Territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical area wherein a Court is conferred with the power to take cogmzance of and adjudicate upon disputes. While territorial jurisdiction is tied into the geographical area where a Court is competent to exercise its function, subject-matter jurisdiction has to do with the nature of the dispute. Subject-matter jurisdiction courts travel to the very epicentre of the dispute and is, in this aspect distinct from pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction as it accounts for the innate character and identity of a dispute.”
The Bench explained, “Such character or identity of a dispute is what dictates the area of the law that is attracted and consequently determines the court of law that is conferred with the authority to decide the dispute. In other words, while territorial jurisdiction may be treated as a technicality that may not after the court of first instance has ruled over a dispute, outweigh the cause of justice, a ruling by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “A perusal of the impugned order will make it clear that the same is a well reasoned order and not a non-speaking one. The Trial Court has made an observation that since, the application for amendment has been filed only after hearing the arguments advanced by the respondents in relation to the application for return of plaint, the application for return of the plaint has to be decided first. It is not a matter purely of the Trial Court's discretion over the course of proceedings in terms of what the Trial Court prefers to hear and adjudicate when. Rather, it is the chronological order in which issues are brought to the fore that seem to partly dictate the opinion of the Trial Court. It stands to reason that the issue that surfaces first in the course of proceedings and is then reasoned before the Court shall be what is settled first before moving on to the next issue, especially when such an issue travels to the foundation of the suit.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: M/S. Vivienda Luxury Homes LLP v. M/S. Gregory & Nicholas & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:1048)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Nigel Da Costa Frias and S. Nishad
Respondents: Advocates Shivan Desai, Jatin Ramaiya and Riya Amonkar
