1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MISC. PETITION NO. 3 OF 2010 SICOM LTD. .. Petitioner V/s Niwas Spinning Mills & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Jaymala Raut i/b Juris Consultant for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Mulye for respondent no.1. Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Ashok Tajane for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30th APRIL 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short “the Act”). At the outset, the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition and submitted that the petition can be filed only in the District Court at Solapur. Conceding to the objection, the petitioner through its counsel requests for return of the petition for presentation to the District Court at Solapur. The request is objected by the respondents. 2 3. A short question that arises for my consideration is whether the petition can be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the District Court at Solapur? 4. My answer to the question is in the affirmative for the reasons given below. 5. Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) states that subject to the provisions of Rule 10-A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code clearly empowers the Court to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court if the court is of the view that it has no jurisdiction and some other court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. 6. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code applies only to the suits and what can be returned is the plaint. It cannot apply to a petition which is not a suit. Relying upon a decision in the case of Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited 3 v. S.K.K. Kulkarni & Others, (2009) 2 S.C.C. 236, he submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the proceedings under section 31 of the Act are not in the nature of a suit. Consequently, provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 cannot apply to the petition under section 31 of the Act. 7. Section 141 of the Code says that the procedure provided in the Code relating to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the proceedings instituted under section 31 of the Act are proceedings of civil nature. Hence, the procedure provided regarding the suits would, as far as possible, be applicable for the applications under section 31 of the Act. The procedure under the Code includes not only the procedure at the trial, but even the pre-trial procedure including the procedure to be followed for return of the plaint. So construed, Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code would apply not only to the return of the plaint in a suit but also to the return of an application/petition in a civil proceeding which strictly cannot be regarded as a suit. Hence, the objection of Mr. Godbole that the petition cannot be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper court cannot be accepted. 4 8. For these reasons, I am inclined to exercise my power under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Order 7 Rule 10-A of the Code for return of the petition. In view of the ensuing summer vacation, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to approach before the District Court, Solapur in the month of June. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER (a) The petition be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the District Court at Solapur. (b) The petition shall be presented to the District Court at Solapur within one week of the opening of the District Court after the summer vacation of the current year. (c) The parties shall appear before the District Court at Solapur on 21st June 2010. Mr. Godbole prays for stay of this order as the respondents want to challenge the order before the appellate court. As appearance of the respondents before the District Court may be construed as acceptance of the order, I do not 5 see any reason to stay the order. It is however clarified that the appearance of the respondents in the District Court on 21st June 2010 in pursuance of this order shall not take away the right of the respondents to file an appeal. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)