IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Writ Petition No.281 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: November 9, 2011 No.704000274 Ex. Subedar Lapal .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate, for Union of India. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 15.1.1996 (Annexure P-7) and subsequent order dated 29.8.1996 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner has also prayed for writ of mandamus to reinstate him with continuity in service along with all other consequential benefits. While serving as Inspector, the petitioner was charged under Section 46 of Border Security Force Act (for short 'B.S.F.') for having committed an offence, which is contrary to Section 376 IPC. During the Court Martial proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty and imposed sentence, but confirming authority, Crl. Writ Petition No.281 of 2009 -2- however, did not confirm the finding and sentence so imposed. After recording the minutes of non-confirmation, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and thereupon, he was dismissed from service. The order dismissing the petitioner from service was passed on 15.1.1996, which he has challenged in the present petition. The petitioner had allegedly committed this offence while he was serving at Jodhpur. He was tried by the General Security Force Court at Jodhpur. The confirmation was also at Jodhpur and the impugned order dismissing the petitioner was passed at Jaisalmer. It is, thus, clear that no cause of action has arisen under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In fact the respondents have raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition before this Court. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition may be returned to him for presenting it in the Court of competent jurisdiction. As per Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint filed at any stage of the suit can be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. By way of explanation, it is provided that the Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint. This procedure for returning the plaint is also contained in Section 10(2)CPC. On returning a plaint the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of presenting it or date of return, the name of the party presenting it and a brief statement of reasons for returning it. The order passed here would suffice the requirement of the said Section. Crl. Writ Petition No.281 of 2009 -3- Accordingly, the present petition is ordered to be returned to the petitioner for being presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction. For the purpose of record, it is noticed that this writ petition was filed in this Court on 18.11.1996 and was put up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 21.11.1996 and is ordered to be returned to the petitioner today for presenting the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction. November 9, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE