Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010097652026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/189/2026 KESHAB GOGOI S/O LATE LOHIT GOGOI, R/O LIM ENCLAVE, JILIKA PATH, OPP. KALAKSHETRA, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI- 37, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS HARI PRAKASH KARMAKAR S/O LATE GAURI SANKAR KARMAKAR, R/O MAIN ROAD, BONGAIGAON TOWN, DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM- 783380. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BORAH, S K SHARMA,MR. S. DEY Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 22-05-2026 Heard Mr. B. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is the defendant in M.S. 15/2025 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bongaigaon has assailed the order dated Page No.# 2/4 06.03.2026 passed by the said learned Court in Misc. (J) Case No. 68/2025 by which the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was dismissed on contest. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Guwahati and he had filed a criminal complaint case under section 223 of the BNSS, which was registered in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati as Complaint Case No. 498c/2024 which was made over for trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. By the said complaint, prayer was made before the said learned Court for taking cognizance of offences under Section 120B /420/506 IPC. 4. It is projected that the said complaint case was returned by order dated 26.03.2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Thereafter the respondent-plaintiff had instituted M.S. 15/2025 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bongaigaon seeking damages and compensation for defamation which was valued at Rs. 5.00 lakh, which is structured on the ground that the complaint petition was filed and the respondent was defamed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the said proceeding and filed his written statement and filed a separate application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint. The said petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 68/2025 in M.S. 15/2025. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bongaigaon, by order dated 06.03.2026, rejected the said prayer. Hence this application. Page No.# 3/4 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bongaigaon, to entertain a suit for compensation for wrong to the respondent, which should not have been entertained at Bongaigaon as the petitioner resides at Guwahati and by filing a complaint case at Guwahati, wrong to respondent/ plaintiff, if any, was committed at Guwahati. Accordingly, by referring to Section 19 of the CPC, it is submitted that the suit for compensation for wrongs has to be instituted, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the Court of local jurisdiction where the wrong was committed or in the Court where the defendant resides. 7. In light of the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if a suit is otherwise maintainable but has been filed other than in a Court where the suit should have been instituted, it would not make out a case for rejection of the plaint within the meaning of any of the clause of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, but it may constitute a ground for seeking return of plaint under Rule 10 of Order VII CPC. This is not a case where any of the Clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC is attracted. 8. Therefore, for reasons other than what the learned Trial Court had arrived at, the Court is of the considered opinion that on merit, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 9. However, in the event, the petitioner is of the view that it ought to have been instituted in the appropriate Court of jurisdiction, the order dated 06.03.2026, as well as this order, shall not preclude the petitioner from taking such steps as he may be so advised. 10. Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 Page No.# 4/4 stands rejected, however, with liberty to the petitioner as indicated above. 11. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant