IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 177 of 2004. Date of decision: 26.12.2008. Ishar Dass and others Petitioners. Versus Shanta Devi . Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners that the plaint presented before him was not properly presented and hence the suit is not maintainable. The factual background of the case is that the respondent- plaintiff Shanta Devi filed a suit against the petitioners for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of half share of the suit property and is entitled to remain in joint possession of the same and is also entitled to partition of the land. It was also prayed that the sale deed No. 660 dated 13.5.1998 was not binding on her. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu. After issues 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 had been framed and parties led evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit because the value of the property was Rs.3,80,000/-. The learned Civil Judge directed that the plaint be ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court. The plaintiff thereafter filed the plaint in the Court of the learned District Judge on 16.7.2003. The counsel for the plaintiff, however, while filing the amended plaint also attached the Court fees and got a new plaint typed and filed the fresh typed plaint alongwith the returned plaint. It would be pertinent to mention that the learned trial Court had permitted the amendment of the plaint since no objection was raised to such amendment vide order dated 27.2.2002. On 31.10.2003 it was observed by the learned District Judge that the plaint filed in his Court did not bear any endorsement that the same had been returned and the plaintiff was directed to file the plaint which had been returned to him. Thereafter, on the application of the plaintiff, the record of the original Civil Suit No. 77 of 1998 was requisitioned by the Court of the District Judge. I have also perused the entire record. It is apparent that vide order dated 16.6.2003 the learned Civil Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu ordered the return of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge should have thereafter followed the procedure laid down in Order 7 Rule 10. He was required to make an endorsement on the original plaint showing therein the date of its presentation, the date of the 3 return, the name of the parties presenting the suit and a brief statement giving the reasons for return of the plaint. Such endorsement is not contained in the plaint filed in the Court of the learned District Judge. On perusal of the record of the learned Civil Judge, it is apparent that the plaintiff filed an application for return of the plaint on 8.7.2003. The Civil Judge on the same date directed that the original plaint be returned after retaining a copy thereof. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the plaintiff received the copy of the amended plaint against proper receipt. However, neither the Civil Judge nor the office of the Civil Judge made any endorsement as required under Order 7 Rule 10 as mentioned here-in-above. The plaint was returned without making endorsement on the basis of the order passed by the Court. However, it is apparent that the plaint which was returned was the amended plaint which was on the file of the learned Civil Judge and the same amended plaint was filed in the Court of the learned District Judge. The learned counsel for the plaintiff while filing the returned plaint in the Court of the learned District Judge also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint by showing in the heading of the plaint the name of the Court as the Court of the learned District Judge and also incorporating para No.13 A in which details of the return of the plaint had been given. A perusal of the list of documents filed alongwith this plaint shows that alongwith this so called amended 4 plaint the copy of the original amended plaint returned by the Senior Sub Judge as well as the certified copy of the order dated 16.6.2003 and copy of Jamabandi were filed. It may be true that the procedure followed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff may not have been strictly correct. However, it is apparent that the mistake occurred more because of the fact that the office of the learned Civil Judge did not follow the procedure laid down under Order 7 Rule 10, while returning the plaint had no endorsement was made as required under law. The plaint which was returned was filed alongwith fresh amended proposed plaint and the application for amendment. The learned District Judge rightly held that on this technical ground the plaint could not be rejected. The law is well settled that no party should suffer for the fault of its counsel or for the fault of the Court. In this case, the first mistake was of the learned Civil Judge and his office. There was a mistake by the counsel for the party also. The party cannot be made to suffer for the same. Therefore, I do not feel that this is a fit case calling for my interference in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. December 26, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™