RSA No.4135 of 2009 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4135 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: 17.02.2011 Joginder Singh ……Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat Village Bundala …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Joginder Singh-plaintiff, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. In view of limited contention raised by counsel for the appellant in the instant second appeal, I need not advert to the facts of the case. Suffice to mention that both the Courts below have held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, but inspite thereof, the suit has also been dismissed on merits. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that once the trial Court held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, the suit could not be dismissed and rather the plaint should have been returned for presentation before Court of competent jurisdiction in view of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). RSA No.4135 of 2009 (O & M) - 2 - I find considerable force in the aforesaid contention. Order 7 Rule 10 CPC is very categorical. The plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. In the instant case, it has been held by the Courts below that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of this finding, the plaint should have been returned to the plaintiff instead of dismissing the suit. Courts below have, therefore, committed illegality in dismissing the suit instead of returning the plaint. Following substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal:- “Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit instead of ordering return of the plaint to the plaintiff after it was held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?” For the reasons already recorded, answer to this question is rendered in negative i.e. in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is allowed and judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside except the finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, which finding is affirmed. Consequently, plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in Court of competent jurisdiction. File of the Courts below be sent back at once. Plaintiff-appellant is directed to appear in the trial Court on 22.03.2011 for receiving back the plaint. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 17.02.2011 A.kaundal