: 1 : 648-11-cra=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 648 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 485 OF 2010 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 2961 OF 2009 Smt. Jessie Vaz .. Applicant v/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Diwakar Dwivedi for the applicant Ms. Suchita Joshi-Dongre i/b Ketan Chotani for respondent nos. 2 and 3 Smt. K.K. Soran for BMC ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 5th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. As this matter was called out, learned advocate for the applicant applied for withdrawal of this petition on the ground that the applicant wishes to challenge the notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act issued by the respondent no.1 before the appropriate forum. The Civil Revision Application is allowed to be withdrawn. Dismissal of the L.C. Suit No.2961 of 2009 filed by the applicant in the City Civil Court pursuant to order dated 8th September, 2011 shall not come in the way of applicant in the matter of filing : 2 : 648-11-cra=.sxw appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authorities. The interim protection, which was enjoyed by the applicant on the basis of orders passed by the City Civil Court shall continue till 21st October, 2011. 2. Normally, after passing the aforesaid order, there would not be any occasion to comment upon the order dated 8th September, 2011. However, on account of the order which is passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, I am constrained to make this observation. The petitioner instituted L.C. Suit No.2961 of 2009 in the City Civil Court at Bombay so as to challenge the notice issued by respondent no.1 under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. It is noticed that the petitioner had filed Notice of Motion No.485 of 2010 so as to seek certain interim relief. That notice of motion came to be decided by the learned Judge on 8th September, 2011 and following order is passed. “Notice of motion No.485 of 2010 is dismissed on the point of jurisdiction. Ad-interim order stands vacated. No order as to costs”. 3. At the time of deciding the notice of motion, learned Judge of the City Civil Court had framed the following issues. : 3 : 648-11-cra=.sxw “Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit by virtue of Section 149 of the MRTP Act ?” 4. The learned Judge gave the answer to this issue in the negative. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court thereafter passed an order on the plaint i.e. Exh.1 on 8th September, 2011. The text of the order dated 8th December, 2011 is as follows. “The suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No order as to costs”. 5. It is noticed that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction. If this is so, it was necessary for the learned Judge to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing it to the proper Court. After returning of the plaint, it could have been left to the petitioner to have the said plaint filed in the proper Court in accordance with the provisions of law. Instead, the learned Judge dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. It is a matter of first principle that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the Court in which the suit is filed has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in accordance with the provisions, the Court cannot dismiss the suit but it is the duty of the Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing it before the proper Court. It is not necessary for this Court to state the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in that behalf. : 4 : 648-11-cra=.sxw In my view, the impugned order is patently wrong. It is contrary to the well established principles of law. It is necessary to circulate a copy of this order amongst the Judges of City Civil Court, Mumbai. The Registrar General shall forward a copy of this order to the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai who shall in turn circulate this order amongst all the Judges of the City Civil Court, Mumbai. Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)