The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Dhubri for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51, 635.00. It was registered and numbered as Money Suit No. 1 of 1990. Summons were issued to the defen­dants who entered appearance. The defendants filed a petition praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff had not stated in the plaint anything about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Another petition was also filed seeking time to file written statement. The plaintiff also filed a petition for amendment of the plaint. The Assistant District Judge did not allow the amendment. He held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for filing in proper Court. In terms of the order, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff, but while doing so, no endorsement was made on the same as required by Rule 10 (2) of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This fact having been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court by order dated 22. 12. 90 issued notice on the counsel for the plaintiff to re-submit the plaint for endorsement thereon by the Court as per law. The plaint was resubmitted by the plaintiff and it was returned to him with the endorsement on 9. 1. 91. The plaintiff, thereafter, incorporated necessary facts in the plaint to show that the same Court had territorial jurisdiction in the matter and re-submitted the same to the same Court. The re-submitted plaint was again registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 33 of 1990. This time the Court considered the question as to whether the punched court fees submitted in Money Suit No. 1 of 1990, the plaint of which had been returned for filing in the proper Court, could be used while presenting the plaint again in the proper Court or not. It was held that the punched court fees could not be used while filing the plaint again and, accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to take back the punched court fees filed in the suit and file fresh court fees as per valuation. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision petition. It was held that the punched court fees could not be used while filing the plaint again and, accordingly, the plaintiff was directed to take back the punched court fees filed in the suit and file fresh court fees as per valuation. It is this order which has been challenged in this revision petition. Before proceeding to deal with the merits of the decision it would be expedient to set out the order dated 22.1.90 which is in the following terms : "22. 1. 90. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as to whether the punched court fees submitted in the M. S. 1/90 the plaint of which was returned for filing in the proper court can be used in this suit. The plaint was returned to the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction to try this suit. The plaintiff has now filed this suit and has paid the court fees by using the punched court fees used earlier in the M.S. No. 1/90. I have gone through the relevant provisions of the law and failed to see how the plaintiff can use the punched court fees of a suit, the plaint of which was returned in another suit. In the result, I direct the plaintiff to take back the punched court fees fiied in this suit and file fresh court fees as per valuation within seven days. Fix 31.1.91 for orders." Mr. R. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the aforesaid order is patently wrong. It goes counter to the very object and purpose of Rule 10 Order 7 of the CPC which provides for return of a plaint for presenting to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. His submission is that the plaintiff may present the same plaint with the punched court fee to the proper Court having jurisdiction if there is an endorsement on the same as contemplated by sub-rule (2) of Rule 10. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. I have also perused the provisions of Rule 10 of Order 7 of the CPC which deals with the return of the plaint. It reads : "10. Return of plaint-(1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, 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. It reads : "10. Return of plaint-(1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, 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. Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule. (2) Procedure on returning plaint.-On returning a plaint the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. From a bare reading of this Rule itself it is clear that the plaint may be returned at any stage of the suit to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. From the explanation to sub-rule (1), which was inserted by the 1976 Amendment Act with effect from 1. 2. 77, it is further clear that even a Court of appeal or revision may after setting aside the decree passed in a suit direct the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 lays down the procedure to be followed while returning the plaint. It requires the Judge concerned to endorse on the plaint, the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. This is a salutary requirement and has an important purpose to serve. Such an endorsement enables the Court before whom the plaint is presented subsequently without any enquiry to accept the plaint on re-submission. This is also necessary to enable the Court to accept the plaint with punched court fees. The sole question that falls for determination is whether in a case where a Court after receiving a plaint and canceling the stamp affixed thereto returns a plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Rule 10 of Order 7 of the CPC the latter Court to which the plaint is re-presented can refuse to accept the plaint on the ground that the court fees were punched. On proper consideration of the scheme and object of Rule 10 of Order 7 of the CPC, I am of the opinion that the plaint which has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC, can be resubmitted with the same court fee which had been used while filing the same in the first Court which returned it. If the court fee is found to be deficient, he can only be asked to pay additional court fees, but in no event the plaintiff can be asked to pay fresh court fee on the ground that the court fees had been punched by the Court where it had been originally presented. Any other view will frustrate the very object of return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court. It may also be observed that in all cases where the plaint is returned under Rule 10 of Order 7 of the CPC the court fees would be punched. This is evident from section 30 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 which provides: "30. Cancellation of stamp.-No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in any Court or office until the stamp has been cancelled. Such officer as the Court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on receiving any such document, forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out the figurehead so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched, and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed." Similar direction is contained in Rules 557 to 561 new (589, 590, 590 A, 591 and 592 old) of Volume I of Civil Rules and Orders, Gauhati High Court. Rule 557 requires every Presiding Judge to formally appoint an officer who should ordinarily be the Bench Assistant whose duty shall be to receive documents to be filed, effect cancellation of such stamps by punching out the figurehead. Rule 558 requires the Presiding Judge to see that punching is done immediately on presentation of document bearing stamps in Court except in a case where a document is insufficiently stamped in which case it should be returned to the party concerned for re-submission after properly stamped. Rule 559 reiterates the mandate of section 30 of the Court Fees Act and provides: "559. Rule 559 reiterates the mandate of section 30 of the Court Fees Act and provides: "559. No documents to which court-fee stamps are attached, shall be filed or acted upon, until the figure heads of the stamps are punched out; the pieces are destroyed and the stamps are registered." Section 30 of the Court Fees Act and the relevant Rules of the Civil Rules and Orders extracted above make it abundantly clear that in every case where an order is passed under Rule 10 of Order 7 of the CPC for return of the plaint to be presented in a proper Court, the court fees would be punched and the plaint that is returned for re-presentation shall invariably be with punched stamps only. It is this plaint which the plaintiff is entitled to present afresh in certain cases also with some modifications. If the punched court fees are not accepted and the plaintiff is directed to pay fresh court fees, the very purpose of returning the plaint shall be frustrated. In fact the return of the plaint is contemplated with a view to enabling the plaintiff without losing the court fees, to present it before the proper Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the opinion that where a Court after receiving a plaint and cancelling the court fee stamps affixed thereto by punching the same return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC for presentation to the proper Court, the Court to which it is so presented is bound to give credit for the court fee already paid with the original plaint. The plaintiff connot be made liable to pay the court fee twice. In view of the foregoing discussion I am of the clear opinion that where the plaint is returned for presentation to the proper Court, no fresh court fee need be paid while re-presenting it to such other Court. For the reasons forth above the learned District Judge was not justified in refusing to accept the plaint with punched court fee and directing him to deposit fresh court fee. The impugned order dated 22. 2. 91 directing the plaintiff to take back the punched court fees and file fresh court fees as per valuation is, therefore, set aside. The learned District Judge is directed to accept the punched court fee as proper court fee and proceed accordingly.