Judgment :- 1. The question that arises for consideration in this case relates to the representation of a plaint returned by a court to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted, to the very same court which returned the plaint. After making necessary amendments in the plaint to attract the territorial jurisdiction of the court which returned the plaint, the same plaint was represented to the court which returned the plaint by the plaintiff without paying fresh court-fee. The court rejected the plaint saying: "Since there is already a finding that this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit it will not be open to the plaintiff to re-present the plaint in the same court. There is no change of circumstance as far as the territorial jurisdiction of the court is concerned." In this Civil Revision Petition the plaintiff challenges the above order of the court below rejecting his plaint. 2. Shri T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the court below went wrong in rejecting the plaint on the ground that there is already a finding regarding the question of jurisdiction in the order returning the plaint. According to the learned counsel, that 6nding was on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint as it stood then and in view of the fact that the plaint has now been amended before re-presentation by incorporating averments necessary to attract the court's jurisdiction, the court could not reject the plaint simply saying that the question of jurisdiction was already decided. Learned counsel further contends that it is open for the plaintiff to amend a plaint returned by the court and re-present the same to the very same court and the court can reject the same only if the court has not either the territorial jurisdiction or the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case as put forth in the re-presented plaint Learned counsel refers to Order VII R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contends that the return of the plaint was for representation to the proper court and the plaint was re-presented to the very same court because after the changes made in the plaint that court gets jurisdiction in the matter. In such a case, the finding in the order returning the plaint cannot at all stand in the way of the court in accepting the plaint and the court will have to accept the same if the re-presented plaint reveals a cause of action which the court has jurisdiction to try. Learned counsel refers to Order VI R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contends that only when a suit is on the file the procedure prescribed by the Code need be complied with for making changes in a plaint. In this connection, reference is made to Debi Sahai v. Ganga Sahai (AIR. 1954 Allahabad 749) wherein it is said: "Under the law a plaintiff is not prevented from amending the plaint which had been returned to him and to represent it to the Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain the amended plaint No question of an abuse of the process of Court is involved in the case." In the above case a plaint which was returned for presentation to the proper court was amended by the plaintiffs themselves and represented to the very same court. It is not mentioned in the judgment whether the plaintiffs paid fresh court-fee or not Reference is then made to Parvathi Ammal v. Meenakshi Ammal (AIR. 1951 Madras 84 ) wherein it is said: "A suit comes to an end when the plaint is returned under 0.7 R,10 for presentation to proper court. By representing the old plaint, with new claims and reliefs added, suo mote so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the court that returned the plaint, the plaintiff cannot claim that it is a continuation of the old suit. For in substance it is a fresh plaint, though the old plaint had been amended in many respects and presented to the same court which had previously returned the plaint as unamended Hence the plaintiff desiring to sue 'in forma pauperis" had to comply with the mandatory provision contained in 0.33, R.3 by presenting the plaint in person. Presentation of the amended plaint by the advocate who had already appeared in the old suit wherein leave to sue as pauper was obtained is not enough". Presentation of the amended plaint by the advocate who had already appeared in the old suit wherein leave to sue as pauper was obtained is not enough". In the above rase, it is seen that after representation of the plaint with necessary changes to attract the jurisdiction of the court an application under Order XXXIII R.1 and 8 was filed by the plaintiff for permission to sue in forma pauperis. 3. Shri E R. Venkiteswaran, learned counsel for respondents, contends that the plaintiff cannot represent the same plaint even if amended by him to the very same court which returned the same for presentation to the proper court without paying fresh court-fee. Learned counsel points out that by amending the plaint out of court and adding a cause of action the plaint has ceased to be the plaint which was returned by the court. Learned counsel refers to S.26 of the Code of. Civil Procedure and contends that the representation of the plaint after amendment to the very same court is the institution of a fresh suit and hence he cannot escape the payment of fresh court-fee, Learned counsel then contends that even in a case where a plaint is represented to the proper court as per the order of a court returning the same for representation if the plaintiff makes substantial changes in the plaint before representation he will have to pay fresh court-fee. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Sarabhamma v. Peda Veeranna (1949) II MLJ.159) wherein it is said: "Where a Court after receiving a plaint and cancelling the stamp affixed thereto returns the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, under 0.7. R.10 of the Code, the latter Court to which the plaint is presented is bound to give credit for the fee already levied by the former Court. But it is necessary that the plaint returned for presentation and the plaint as presented to the proper Court must be substantially, if not verbatim literatim, the same." Learned counsel then refers to Order VI R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and points out that if the plaintiff had chosen to amend the plaint before the court below returned the same for representation to the proper court, he would not have been put to the difficulty of paying fresh court-fee. Learned counsel also points out that under S.66 of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 a plaintiff who could not represent a plaint within the time granted by the court which returned the same is entitled to a refund of the court-fee paid on the plaint. 4. When a plaint is returned under Order VII R.10, C.P.C., for representation before the proper court, as far as the court which returns the plaint is concerned, the suit comes to an end. If, instead of representing the plaint before the proper court as directed in the order returning the plaint, the plaintiff wants to file it again before the court which returned the same by making necessary alterations to attract the jurisdiction of the court it will be nothing but the institution of a suit. So, it goes without saying that all the formalities including the payment of fresh court-fee have to be complied with The court-fee paid on a suit which has come to an end by the return of the plaint cannot be made use of as the court-fee for the plaint represented to the same court. A plaint presented without paying any court-fee need only be rejected outright because under the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 the plaintiff is bound to value his reliefs and pay court-fee by producing the same along with the plaint. In a case where the court-fee paid is insufficient, the plaintiff will be required by the court to make good the deficit under Order VII Rule H of the Code of Civil Procedure before rejecting the plaint, But that opportunity will not be there where a plaint is filed without paying any court-fee. So, the plaintiff-petitioner cannot have any grievance against the rejection of the plaint by the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition. At the some time, the reason given by the court below is not correct. If the plaintiff had paid fresh court-fee on the plaint represented, the court below was bound to accept the same on the file. The question whether the plaintiff can succeed in view of the finding in the order of the court returning the plaint for representation before the proper court that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit can arise for consideration only at a later stage and anyhow after the appearance of the defendant. The question whether the plaintiff can succeed in view of the finding in the order of the court returning the plaint for representation before the proper court that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit can arise for consideration only at a later stage and anyhow after the appearance of the defendant. It may be a good reason for non-suiting the plaintiff, but at the same time it cannot at all be a reason for not accepting the plaint on the file. To the above extent, the court below has gone wrong. But the rejection of the plaint will stand in view of the admitted fact that no fresh court-fee was paid on the plaint when it was represented after making necessary changes to attract the jurisdiction of the court. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.