Amendment of Plaint Versus Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

Brief Introductory Head Note

The case MTS Papers India Limited v. Spento Papers India LLP, FAO (COMM) 214/2025, decided on 17 November 2025 by the High Court of Delhi, dealt with the question whether a civil commercial court in Delhi could entertain a recovery suit when the plaint did not disclose any facts demonstrating territorial jurisdiction. The High Court examined whether a plaint that is silent on jurisdictional facts can be cured through pleadings like replication or by amendment, especially when an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is pending. Subsequent to filing of application of application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, the plaintiff filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Trial Court rejected the Plaint. High Court upheld dismissal order.

Factual Background

MTS Papers India Limited, the appellant, is a trader of various paperboard products. It facilitated a supply arrangement between Spento Papers India LLP and a third-party customer in Vietnam. As per the understanding between the parties, MTS acted as an intermediary by negotiating price, raising orders, obtaining proforma invoices and handling commercial communication on behalf of the overseas customer. The commission payable to MTS was allegedly agreed upon by both sides.

• Supply of paperboard was executed by Spento Papers to the Vietnamese customer.
• Commission was not paid to MTS, despite repeated email reminders and a legal notice.
• MTS initiated pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, but the respondent did not appear.
• MTS filed a recovery suit in Delhi seeking ₹44,88,961 with interest.

Procedural Detail

The suit was filed before the Commercial Court in Rohini, Delhi as CS (COMM) 519/2022. Spento Papers filed a written statement and also moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground that no territorial jurisdiction existed.

The trial court noted that the plaint did not contain material particulars showing how Delhi courts had territorial jurisdiction. An attempt was later made by MTS to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, claiming that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

The trial court:

• Dismissed the amendment application
• Allowed the defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 10, returning the plaint through an order dated 22 March 2025

MTS then filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act.

Core Dispute

The central controversy before the High Court was whether the plaint, as originally filed, disclosed territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC. If it did not, could the court consider the replication or allow amendment to insert jurisdictional pleadings, while an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was pending?

The dispute involved:

• Statutory requirement for jurisdiction
• Scope of pleadings
• Court’s power when jurisdictional defects exist

Detailed Reasoning Including Judicial Citations

The High Court reiterated that the objection under Order VII Rule 10 is decided on demurrer. Only the facts stated in the plaint must be presumed correct, and the question is whether the court has jurisdiction.

Key relied precedence:

• Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 688

The Court examined the plaint and found that paragraph 23 was the only averment regarding jurisdiction — merely that the plaintiff “works for profit in Delhi”. There was:

• No pleading that any part of the cause of action arose in Delhi
• No statement that the agreement was executed in Delhi
• No assertion that payment was due in Delhi
• No indication commission invoices were payable in Delhi

Other authorities discussed:

• M/s RSPL Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma, 2016:DHC:5482-DB
• HSIL Limited v. Imperial Ceramic, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7185
• Archie Comic Publications Inc. v. Purple Creation Pvt. Ltd., 172 (2010) DLT 234 (DB)

Principle derived:

• If the plaint discloses some jurisdictional facts → amendment may be permitted
• If it discloses no jurisdictional facts → court cannot entertain amendment

The Court relied on:

• Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791

Replication cannot cure defects in the plaint regarding jurisdiction.

Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Commercial Court. It was held that:

• The plaint originally contained no jurisdictional facts
• Replication could not be considered
• Amendment could not be allowed

Thus, the plaint was correctly returned to the proper court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

Concluding Note

This judgment strengthens the principle that litigants cannot choose a forum merely because they carry on business there. Jurisdiction flows from the statute and cause of action pleaded in the plaint. If the plaint does not disclose jurisdictional facts, the court has no authority to allow an amendment to correct the omission.

It serves as a reminder that commercial suits must plead territorial jurisdiction precisely, as defects cannot be cured later.

Case Details

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi