DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the order dated 5th September, 2002 in unnumbered o. S of 2002 (OS SR No. 9132 of 2002) on the file of First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed a suit in o. S. No. 9267 of 1996 against the appellant herein on the file of IV Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Madras and obtained an ex parte decree on 24-12-1996. The appellant herein filed a suit in City Civil Court, hyderabad requesting the court to set aside the ex parte decree passed by Madras Court. It is his plea that the said decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Madras court. It is also his plea that the address of the appellant given by the plaintiff in the said suit is deliberately a wrong address. It also appears that part of cause of action for filing the suit in Madras Court arose at hyderabad. At the threshold itself the trial court returned the plaint for presentation in proper court on the ground that the iv Additional Judge, City Civil Court, madras alone has got jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte decree dated 24-12-1996. ( 3 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant invited the attention of this court to some reported decisions of Madras, Calcutta and patna High Courts. In fact, the impugned order discloses that those decisions were cited before the trial Court. The trial court did not discuss the facts or the principles of law laid down in the above decisions. The question whether Hyderabad or Madras court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit to set aside the ex parte decree in o. S. No. 9267 of 1996 is a triable issue. At the threshold itself it is not desirable to hold that the court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. It cannot also be said that Madras Court alone has got jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. It is to be stated that the proceeding before the city Civil Court at Hyderabad is not a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte decree. It cannot also be said that Madras Court alone has got jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. It is to be stated that the proceeding before the city Civil Court at Hyderabad is not a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte decree. If it is a petition under order IX Rule 13 CPC, undoubtedly the court, which passed the ex parte decree alone has got jurisdiction to entertain and pass appropriate orders in that petition. I, therefore, feel convinced that the trial court has committed serious error in not entertaining the suit. After the defendant in the suit makes appearance before the Court and takes necessary pleas, the trial court has to consider the issue from all angles and give a finding regarding its jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The impugned order passed by the trial court returning the plaint at the threshold stage, in my considered opinion, in the circumstances of this case is a premature order. The court should not have returned the plaint at that stage if the suit filed is within time and proper court fee was paid by the plaintiff. As the dispute involved is a triable issue and to be decided by the trial court on merits, I do not wish to consider any of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and give a finding whether as per the principles of law laid down in those decisions the City Civil court, Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to entertain the present suit or not. I, therefore, decide to set aside the impugned order and direct the trial court to entertain the suit, issue summons to the defendant and dispose of the suit on merits. ( 4 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed without costs. The appellant-plaintiff is directed to represent the returned plaint before the First Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad within two weeks from to-day and thereafter the trial court is directed to entertain the suit and proceed further in accordance with law as indicated in the course of this order.