The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh had held that once it is concluded that the initial proceedings in a Suit were held before a court that lacked jurisdiction, the written statement and other evidence that may have been led by the parties before the said court become non-est in the eyes of law and the defendants are within their rights to file their written statement before the transferee court.

The issue before the court was that after a suit was returned for want of jurisdiction by trial court and was transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction. The defendant preferred an application seeking leave of the court for filling of fresh Written statement. The transferee court dismissed the application on the ground that Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC provides that the defendants cannot be allowed to file the written statement as the maximum period of 120 days from the date of service of summons by the trial Court upon them had expired by the time they made an application before the learned trial court seeking permission to file the written statement.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar while relying upon Exl Careers and another vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd, (2020) 12 SCC 667, held that the Court of competent jurisdiction has to proceed de novo after the plaint is returned for want of Jurisdiction even if evidence of the parties stood concluded before the court which returns the plaint. The court further observed that even the defendants were not required to file any such application and it is the duty of the trial court to proceed in the suit as if the plaint had been filed before it afresh.