CSA 214/07 Smt. Chhota Devi Vs. Nanag Ram (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.214/2007 Smt. Chhota Devi Vs. Nanag Ram Date of Judgment :: 13th May,2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Rajendra Prasad, for appellant. Mr. Amit Gupta on behalf of Mr. B.L. Agrawal, for respondent. ....... By the Court :- Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether the courts below erred in not appreciating that in the event of court coming to the conclusion that the suit lies within jurisdiction of some other court, it could not have been dismissed and ought to have been returned for being submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction ? 2. Since the respondent is duly represented through counsel Mr. Amit Gupta, CSA 214/07 Smt. Chhota Devi Vs. Nanag Ram (2) Advocate, therefore, notice after admission need not be issued. 3. A very short question of law is involved in this appeal, therefore, at the request of both the learned counsels for the parties, this has been heard finally. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in a case where court found that suit is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction then the plaint should be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereas in the instant case the trial court wrongly dismissed the suit on this count. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not oppose this submission. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. To appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to have a look on the relevant provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under :- 10. Return of plaint.- (1) [Subject CSA 214/07 Smt. Chhota Devi Vs. Nanag Ram (3) to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall] at any state of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint, under this sub-rule.] (2) Procedure on returning plaint—On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. 7. According to the above provisions, the plaint should be returned for presentation before the appropriate court if it is found that suit is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. In the explanation clause it has also been cleared that court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed, the return of the plaint. It CSA 214/07 Smt. Chhota Devi Vs. Nanag Ram (4) is not disputed that the present suit was not maintainable before the civil court but the same could have been filed before the Family Court, therefore, instead of dismissing the suit on the ground of jurisdiction, the suit ought to have been returned to the plaintiff for presentation in appropriate court or forum. 8. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed and the judgments and decrees impugned in this appeal are set aside and the trial court is directed to return the suit to the plaintiff in accordance to law. It is hereby made clear that if the plaintiff has already filed any suit or petition in relation to the same dispute before the family court or any other competent forum then this order shall not affect the right of the parties in regard to that suit or proceeding. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D44