Patna High Court

Amarjeet KumarversusPinki Devi

Decided: 19 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: BIBEK CHAUDHURI CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the guardianship case for lack of territorial jurisdiction without returning it, and set aside the impugned order.

Summary

The appellant Amarjeet Kumar appealed against the dismissal of Guardianship Case No. 03 of 2018 by the Family Court, Hajipur, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court observed that the dismissal was passed in the absence of the petitioner and that the trial court failed to apply Order 7 Rule 10 and Rule 10A of the CPC, which require a suit filed in an incorrect forum to be returned to the plaintiff for re‑filing. Consequently, the appellate court held the impugned order to be bad in law. The appeal was allowed, the order dated 02‑04‑2024 was set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the maintainability issue and all other matters under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC and dispose of the case on its merits after hearing both parties.

Issues considered

Whether the dismissal of the guardianship suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction was maintainable when the petitioner was absent.
Whether, under Order 7 Rule 10 and Rule 10A of the CPC, the trial court should have returned the suit to the applicant instead of dismissing it outright.
Whether the appellate court can set aside the trial court's order and direct a fresh consideration of maintainability and merits.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 14 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 10, Order 7 Rule 10A

Subjects

guardianship
maintainability
territorial jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Code
appeal
order set aside

Judgment

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    Miscellaneous Appeal No.422 of 2024
                 ======================================================
                 Amarjeet Kumar son of Late Jailal Rai resident of village- Gorigama, P.O.
                 and P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali.
                                                                             ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
                 Pinki Devi wife of Amarjeet Rai, daughter of Shyam Babu Raii resident of
                 Gorigama, P.O. and P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali, Naihari address village
                 and P.O. Kajari Buzurg, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali, presently wife of
                 Manoj Kumar resident of village Biddilpur Sarai, P.S. and P.O.- Patori,
                 District Samastipur.
                                                                          ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s    :       Mr.Rajeev Ranjan
                 For the Respondent/s   :       Mr.Satya Prakash Sinha
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
                         and
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

                 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)


7   19-03-2026                 Heard learned advocate on behalf of the appellant and

                   learned advocate on behalf of the respondent.

                               2. The instant appeal challenges the order dated

                   02.04.2024, where by and where under Guardianship Case No.

                   03 of 2018 was dismissed on the ground of maintainability for

                   want of territorial jurisdiction.

                               3. On perusal of the impugned order dated 02.04.2024

                   passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hajipur at

                   Vaishali, this Court finds that on the date of dismissal of

                   guardianship case, the petitioner/father was not present. We fail

                   to understand that how an issue of maintainability can be
          Patna High Court MA No.422 of 2024(7) dt.19-03-2026
                                                      2/2




                    decided in the absence of the applicant of Guardianship Case

                    No. 03 of 2018, moreover, under the provision of Order 7 Rule

                    10 read with Order 7 Rule 10A, a suit cannot be held to be

                    maintainable, if it is filed in a wrong forum having no territorial

                    jurisdiction. In that case, plaint be returned to the applicant to

                    file the same in appropriate court. Without the provision

                    contained in Rule 10 and Rule 10A of Order 7, the learned trial

                    court directly dismissed the guardianship case holding inter-alia

                    that same is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.

                                 4. The impugned order is bad in law and cannot be

                    sustained, accordingly, we allow the instant appeal, set aside the

                    impugned judgment dated 02.04.2024 and direct the learned

                    trial court to take up the issue of maintainability along with all

                    other issues as directed in Order 14 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and dispose

                    of the same on merit after hearing both the parties.


                                                                (Bibek Chaudhuri, J)


                                                            (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…