Intiyaz Sheikh vs Puma Se on 10 August, 2021
16. The senior counsel for the respondent in CM(M) No.132/2021, on 3rd
August, 2021 argued, that (i) the remedy for a defence that the Court in
which the suit had been instituted does not have territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the same having been provided in Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC,
the said plea, even if given the nomenclature of Order VII Rule 11 of the
CPC, ought to be treated as one under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC;
reliance in this regard was placed on Vineet Handa Vs. Ozo Media Estate
Ltd. MANU/PH/3476/2020; (ii) orders of dismissal of applications under
Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC as well as applications under Order VII Rule
11 of the CPC are revisable under Section 115 of the CPC, if otherwise
satisfy the requirements thereof of failure to exercise jurisdiction or of
having been made in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material
irregularity; (iii) if an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is
allowed and the plaint rejected, the resultant order is a decree under Section
2(2) of the CPC and appealable under Section 96 of the CPC; (iv) similarly,
CM(M) Nos.132/2021 & 225/2021 Page 9 of 18
if an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is allowed, the same
is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the CPC; (v) on the contrary,
if an application under Order VII Rule 11 is dismissed and the order is
made in failure of exercise of jurisdiction and / or acting in exercise of
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the proviso to Section 115
is satisfied because, had the application been allowed, the said order would
have finally disposed of the suit; and, (vi) similarly, the order of dismissal
of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is also revisable if an
outcome of failure to exercise jurisdiction and / or made in exercise of
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, because if the application
had been allowed, the suit would have been disposed of by return of the
plaint.