{"id":376737,"date":"2026-02-25T13:30:41","date_gmt":"2026-02-25T08:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=376737"},"modified":"2026-03-02T10:16:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-02T04:46:56","slug":"raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Property’s ‘actual use’ is sine qua non to determine ‘commercial’ dispute: Rajasthan HC dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer:<\/span> This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> While considering an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a<\/span>)<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC) challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge wherein the plaint was returned to be filed before the Commercial Court of competent jurisdiction, a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeet Purohit<\/span>, J., held that the “actual use” of the property for trade or commerce is the sine qua non for qualifying a dispute as “commercial” in nature.<\/p>\n

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that no error was committed by the trial court in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

In the case at hand, the dispute involved an agreement to sell dated 22 February 2024 for two shops (suit premises) from which the appellants were conducting business as tenants for over 10 years. The respondents entered into the agreement to sell for Rs 33,00,000 of which Rs 3,00,000 were paid in advance, with the balance payable on execution and registration of the sale deed.<\/p>\n

As per the agreement, respondents were to execute the sale deed within six months, however failed to do so. The appellants issued a legal notice on 23 September 2024, which was refused by the respondents. The appellants then filed a suit for specific performance and sought mandatory and prohibitory injunctions.<\/p>\n

The respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> and Section 151<\/a> CPC<\/a>, challenging the maintainability of the suit and the trial court held that suit could not be tried by a civil court for specific performance as suit of an agreement relating to immovable property used for trade qualifies as a commercial dispute. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court.<\/p>\n

Issue, Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court stated that the main issue involved in the matter at hand was as to whether a dispute arising out of an agreement to sell concerning property which was being used for trade and business qualifies as a commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c<\/span>)(vii<\/span>)<\/a>, Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a> (Commercial Courts Act).<\/span><\/p>\n

Considering Section 2(1)(c<\/span>)(vii<\/span>)<\/a>, Commercial Courts Act<\/a>, the Court stated that any dispute arising out of an agreement relating to immovable property which is being used exclusively in trade and commerce will constitute a commercial dispute. Thus, the Court stated that the only issue which was to be determined was whether the suit premises, that is, the two shops, for the sale of which the parties entered into the agreement to sell, dated 22 February 2024, could have been used exclusively for trade or commerce<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd.<\/span> v. K.S. Infraspace LLP<\/span> (2020) 15 SCC 585<\/a> and Vasu Healthcare (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Gujarat Akruti TCG Biotech Ltd.<\/span> 2017 SCC OnLine Guj 724<\/a> and observed that “the ‘actual use’ of the property for trade or commerce is the sine qua non for qualifying a dispute as ‘commercial’ in nature<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

The Court held that the trial court was perfectly justified in concluding that the matter was a commercial dispute, and the same must be adjudicated by Competent Commercial Court. Further, the Court reiterated that at the stage of Order 7 Rule 10, the Court is required to consider only the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by plaintiff. The Court perused the records and highlighted that appellants admitted in the plaint that they were using the suit premises for the purposes of their trade and commerce for more than past 10 years. It was further admitted that when the parties entered into the said agreement to sell in respect of the suit premises, appellants were in possession of the shops as tenants and were using the same even then for their trade and commerce.<\/p>\n

Thus, the acid test as laid down in Ambalal Sarabhai<\/span> (supra) that the property to which the agreement related must “actually be used” and not “likely to be used” stood satisfied. The Court further stated that there remained no doubt that the dispute concerning the specific performance of the agreement relating to sale of suit premises was a commercial dispute and should be adjudicated by Competent Commercial Court. Hence, the Court observed that the trial court rightly returned the plaint to appellants to file the same before the Competent Commercial Court.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the appellants failed to make out a case that would warrant the interference of the Court and the trial court committed no error in holding that, “It did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell and in returning the plaint, in exercise of its power under Order 7 Rule 10<\/a> CPC<\/a>, to be presented before competent commercial Court<\/span>”.<\/span> Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal at hand.<\/p>\n

[Mohsin Samdani<\/span> v. Sajjad Hussain Damami<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Raj 1376<\/a>, decided on 29-1-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellants:<\/span> Rakesh Kumar Chota<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> Tabish Samdani<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The appellants have admitted in the plaint that they have been using the suit premises for the purposes of their trade and commerce for the last more than 10 years. When the parties entered into the said agreement to sell in respect of the suit premises, appellants were in possession of the shops as tenants and were using the same even then for their trade and commerce.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67540,"featured_media":376743,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[99540,33522,47046,99542,39498,36639,91198,73933,99539,57465,2575,99541],"class_list":["post-376737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-acid-test","tag-agreement-to-sell","tag-commercial-court","tag-commercial-courts-jurisdiction","tag-commercial-courts-act-2015","tag-commercial-dispute","tag-cpc-1908","tag-jurisdiction-of-civil-court","tag-justice-sanjeet-purohit","tag-lack-of-jurisdiction","tag-Rajasthan_High_Court","tag-trade-and-commerce"],"yoast_head":"\nActual property usage essential to determine commercial dispute: Raj HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court holds that actual usage of property is to determine 'commercial' dispute; dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction of civil court.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Property's 'actual use' is sine qua non to determine 'commercial' dispute: Rajasthan HC dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court holds that actual usage of property is to determine 'commercial' dispute; dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction of civil court.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-25T08:00:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-02T04:46:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Shriya Singh\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Property's 'actual use' is sine qua non to determine 'commercial' dispute: Rajasthan HC dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shriya Singh\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/\",\"name\":\"Actual property usage essential to determine commercial dispute: Raj HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-25T08:00:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-02T04:46:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0\"},\"description\":\"Rajasthan High Court holds that actual usage of property is to determine 'commercial' dispute; dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction of civil court.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"property usage essential to determine commercial dispute\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Property’s ‘actual use’ is sine qua non to determine ‘commercial’ dispute: Rajasthan HC dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0\",\"name\":\"Shriya Singh\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Shriya Singh\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shriyasingh\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Actual property usage essential to determine commercial dispute: Raj HC | SCC Times","description":"Rajasthan High Court holds that actual usage of property is to determine 'commercial' dispute; dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction of civil court.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Property's 'actual use' is sine qua non to determine 'commercial' dispute: Rajasthan HC dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court holds that actual usage of property is to determine 'commercial' dispute; dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction of civil court.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-25T08:00:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-02T04:46:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Shriya Singh","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Property's 'actual use' is sine qua non to determine 'commercial' dispute: Rajasthan HC dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shriya Singh","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/","name":"Actual property usage essential to determine commercial dispute: Raj HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-25T08:00:41+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-02T04:46:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0"},"description":"Rajasthan High Court holds that actual usage of property is to determine 'commercial' dispute; dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction of civil court.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"property usage essential to determine commercial dispute"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/25\/raj-hc-upholds-return-of-plaint-lack-jurisdiction-of-civil-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Property’s ‘actual use’ is sine qua non to determine ‘commercial’ dispute: Rajasthan HC dismisses appeal against return of plaint over lack of jurisdiction"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/05f52c55c599f9992b3c0535de8a5ed0","name":"Shriya Singh","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/856f9d1200cef7ba5579e8b2c5d144170675fbadcc29a89d7f20ca99f3d28c7e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shriya Singh"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shriyasingh\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/property-usage-essential-to-determine-commercial-dispute.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":311779,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/19\/ordinary-suit-cannot-be-transferred-to-commercial-court-by-district-and-sessions-judge-u-s-24-of-cpc-dhc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":376737,"position":0},"title":"Power to transfer ordinary suit to Commercial Court is not available to District and Sessions Judge u\/s 24 of CPC: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"January 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhere the plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on its presentation before the appropriate Court of jurisdiction, the suit will be treated as a fresh suit, and will have to start de novo, and all proceedings before the earlier Court will be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344285,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/24\/s-24-cpc-cannot-invoked-case-filed-in-court-without-jurisdiction-o-vii-r-10-cpc-invoked-bombay-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":376737,"position":1},"title":"S. 24 CPC cannot be invoked for proceedings filed without jurisdiction, Order VII Rule 10 CPC has to be invoked: Bombay High Court","author":"Editor","date":"March 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court held that when any Civil Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit or application, it had to pass order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of plaint, and procedure of transfer of proceeding under Section 24 of CPC could\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362730,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/06\/bom-hc-amendment-and-rejection-of-plaint-to-be-considered-simultaneously\/","url_meta":{"origin":376737,"position":2},"title":"Application for amendment of plaint affecting Court\u2019s jurisdiction and application for return of plaint to be considered simultaneously: Bombay HC","author":"Editor","date":"October 6, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner contended that the suit did not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, so the respondent filed an amendment application to amend the valuation of the suit \\to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Court.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Amendment and rejection of plaint to be considered simultaneously","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Amendment-and-rejection-of-plaint-to-be-considered-simultaneously.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Amendment-and-rejection-of-plaint-to-be-considered-simultaneously.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Amendment-and-rejection-of-plaint-to-be-considered-simultaneously.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Amendment-and-rejection-of-plaint-to-be-considered-simultaneously.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311987,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/23\/cal-hc-establishes-appeals-maintainability-under-order-431a-read-with-section-104-of-cpc-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":376737,"position":3},"title":"Calcutta High Court establishes appeal\u2019s maintainability under Order 43(1)(a) and Section 104 of CPC, refers to appropriate jurisdiction","author":"Ritu","date":"January 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court referred the appeal to the bench with jurisdiction over first appeals from orders under Order 43(1)(a) passed by a regular court of civil jurisdiction, not by a special or commercial court.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":342620,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/01\/s-85-of-waqf-act-waqf-tribunal-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-over-disputes-once-property-qualifies-as-waqf-by-user-raj-hc-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":376737,"position":4},"title":"S. 85 of Waqf Act | Waqf Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes once a property qualifies as \u2018Waqf by user\u2019: Rajasthan High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"March 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is not disputed that Masjid is a place used for religious purpose for praying Namaz etc., therefore, it comes within the definition of \u2018Waqf\u2019.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rajasthan High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363794,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/15\/ieee-mumbai-section-welfare-assn-v-global-ieee-institute-for-engineers-an-immediate-re-look-necessary-by-the-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":376737,"position":5},"title":"IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Assn. v. Global IEEE Institute for Engineers: An Immediate Re-Look Necessary by the Supreme Court","author":"Editor","date":"October 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Basanti Lal Pavecha* and Avish Mittal**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Rejection-of-plaint-under-Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Rejection-of-plaint-under-Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Rejection-of-plaint-under-Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Rejection-of-plaint-under-Order-7-Rule-11-CPC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67540"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=376737"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376737\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/376743"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=376737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=376737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=376737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}