Returned plaints are treated as fresh suits on re-presentation, and interest cannot be claimed for time spent in the wrong court.

A plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and re-presented before the competent court is treated as a fresh suit, not a continuation of the earlier proceeding; the earlier filing in a court lacking jurisdiction does not carry forward, though exclusion of time may be sought under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. On interest, the court held that a party cannot claim the benefit of interest from the date of the original filing in the wrong forum, since it cannot derive advantage from its own error in instituting proceedings before an incompetent court. The impugned judgment was set aside and the trial court and appellate court orders were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and re-presented before the competent court is a continuation of the earlier suit or a fresh suit; (ii) whether the respondent was entitled to interest from the date of the original filing before the court lacking territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and re-presented before the competent court is a continuation of the earlier suit or a fresh suit.

Analysis: A suit instituted in a court lacking jurisdiction cannot continue as if it were pending in the proper court. Once the plaint is returned and presented before the court of competent jurisdiction, the earlier proceedings do not carry forward as a continuation of that suit. The party may seek exclusion of the time spent before the wrong forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the re-presented plaint is to be treated as a fresh plaint and the matter proceeds de novo.

Conclusion: It is a fresh suit and not a continuation of the earlier proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was entitled to interest from the date of the original filing before the court lacking territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The decree granted interest from the date of filing of the suit, but that expression could not be used to confer a benefit for the period spent before a court which had no jurisdiction. The respondent could not derive advantage from its own mistake in choosing the wrong forum. The principle that an act of court should prejudice no man does not assist a party to claim interest for the period attributable to its own error in instituting proceedings before an incompetent court.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to interest from the date of the original filing in the wrong court.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court were restored, leaving the respondent confined to the consequences of filing in the wrong forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint returned for presentation to the proper court under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is treated as a fresh suit on re-presentation, and a litigant cannot claim the benefit of time or relief attributable to proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction except as permitted by Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---