In Brief
The respondent filed a recovery suit under a franchise agreement in Gurgaon, but the agreement's clause 16B conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Delhi courts. The suit was returned to be refiled in Delhi, but the question arose whether it should proceed de novo or continue from where it was. The Supreme Court held that under Order VII Rules 10-10A of the CPC, a returned plaint must proceed de novo, following the Modern Construction principle. However, applying its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142, the Court declined to disturb the High Court's order due to the appellant's delay in raising the jurisdictional objection, completion of pleadings, evidence, and advanced stage of trial.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.