1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1974 OF 2009 Shri Khandu Nathuram Patil .. Petitioner Vs Shri Sunil Prabhakar Thakur and anr .. Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr S.M.Oak, for respondent no.1. Mr.R.S.Datar, for Respondent no.2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 24/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has impugned the order dated 22.10.2008 disposing of the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr Dn., Pen, holding that the Misc.Civil T 2 Appeal is not maintainable since there is no order of return of the plaint as contemplated by Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”). By the order dated 19.9.2008, an application filed by the respondent-defendant no.1 under section 9A of CPC has been allowed. The respondent- defendant no.1 filed the said application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. 3. By order dated 19.9.2008 passed on the application filed by the respondent-defendant no.1, the learned Judge has allowed the said application, holding that he has no jurisdiction (pecuniary) to entertain the suit filed by the petitioner. It is now well settled that once having come to the conclusion that the court has no jurisdiction, the only option open to the court is to pass an order, as contemplated by rule 10 of Order VII of CPC. However, in the present case, the trial Court proceeded to direct the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit the deficit court fee. This part of the order, in my opinion, was without jurisdiction and the learned Judge ought to have simply returned the plaint as provided for under rule 10 of Order VII of CPC. Insofar as the order dated 22.10.2008, passed in the Misc. Civil Appeal is concerned, the Appellate Court was justified in passing the said order since there was no order of return of the plaint. Having 3 considered the nature of the orders, impugned in the present petition, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice. The trial Court shall proceed to pass an appropriate order, as contemplated by rule 10 of Order VII of CPC, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the said order in appeal as provided for under sub- rule (a) of Rule 1 of Order 43 of CPC. In view of this order, the order dated 22.10.2008 renders ineffective. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule made absolute in terms of this order. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)