1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4830 OF 2009 Dr.H.B.Tongaonkar ...Petitioner vs. Gautam Ramesh Adhikari & others ...Respondents Mr.Surel Shah i/b M/s.Mulla & Mulla & CBC for petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 27, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint and in particular paragraph 26 thereof. He submitted that the application at Exh.11 dated 28th January 2009 was essentially an application for return of plaint for presentation to the appropriate court in as much as on plain reading of the plaint the court concerned has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. He pointed without considering the prayer made in the application, the same has been rejected on a totally irrelevant ground viz; the suit is proceeding exparte against the petitioner. 2 I have considered the submissions. It is true that the application at Exh.11 could not have been rejected on the ground stated in the impugned order. Perhaps the learned Judge was misled by the title of the application 2 which showed that the application was under rule 11 of Order VII of the said Code for rejection of the plaint. 3 Notwithstanding the impugned order, it will be open for the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking order of return of plaint under Rule 10 of Order VII of the said Code on the ground that the concerned court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Notwithstanding the impugned order, if such application is made by the petitioner, the concerned court will consider the said application on merits in accordance with law. 4 Subject to observations made above, writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE