M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard both the learned advocates. Appellant's learned Advocate has assailed the correctness of the order dated 2-4-1994 principally on the ground that the division bench decision in the case of Syed Abdul Jabbar and others v The Board of Wakfs in Karnataka by its secretary and others does not prescribe any legal bar to the court entertaining the same cause of action after the requisite statutory notice requirement has been complied with. The subsidiary argument is that the learned trial judge was in error in having dismissed the suit in its entirety because the relief is basically directed against the first defendant which was capable of being independently granted even if the suit were to be dismissed against defendant 3. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT's learned Advocate has supported the order inso far as he points out that the division bench did in the aforesaid judgment point out that if a suit is rendered defective for want of statutory notice that the correct procedure is to dismiss the suit as not being maintainable, but the division bench had clarified that it is open to the party to comply with the notice requirement and to reinstitute the proceedings. Thereafter respondent's learned Advocate submits that the division bench has disapproved of the wrong practice of returning of the plaint insofar as that is only permissible in cases where the court has no jurisdiction and the papers are returned for re-presentation to the proper forum. He submits that in this case the appellant took the plaint back, complied with the notice requirement and thereafter re-presented the same plaint and he submits that this was an irregular procedure and that there is a complete and total legal bar to the same. To my mind, the objection canvassed is highly technical because the real question is as to whether there is any strict legal infirmity such as a bar of res judicata in the way of the plaintiff and if the answer to the question is 'no' and as it is in the present case, then the order passed by the learned trial judge dismissing the plaint will have to be set aside. The reason for this is that even if the appellant who was the plaintiff in the trial court applied for return of the plaint for the purpose of complying with the notice requirement, the court was in error in having permitted this procedure and since the plaint was returned, the plaintiff once again committed the error of re-presenting the same plaint. To my mind it would not make much difference whether it is the same case paper that was re-presented or whether the cause of action was re-typed on another piece of ledger paper and represented to the court. The real question as i said is, as to whether there is any legal bar in the way of the plaintiff. Having regard to the fact that the errors were purely procedural, the upholding of the objection canvassed by the defendants was incorrect. At this point of time it is not necessary to direct any further corrective action insofar as even within the framework of law as held by the division bench, the plaintiff will still be entitled to agitate the suit on merits. ( 3 ) THE impugned order is accordingly set aside. The suit in question is restored and the learned trial judge shall take up the same and dispose it off on merits. The appeal accordingly succeeds and stands disposed of. --- *** --- .