Judgment :- Common Judgment: A.S.No. 103 of 1992 is preferred by the defendant M/s Yara Sales Depot, Shahapur, Belgaum, Karnataka, as against the Order made in O.S.No.96 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku. Likewise, A.S.No.2108 of 1991 is filed by M/s Harison & Company, Yarn Merchants at 79 Modge, Belgaum, Karnataka, as against the Order made in O.S.No.97 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku. (2) The respondents in both these appeals -the plaintiff in both the suits is M/s Sree Akkamamba Textiles Limited, a Public Limited Company, Venkatarayapuram, Tanuku, West Godavari district. These suits were filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of the amounts on the strength of commercial transactions. (3) On the respective pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge having settled the issues, recorded oral and documentary evidence and ultimately, came to the conclusion, recording positive findings, that the plaintiff in both the suits would be entitled to their respective claims, but however, further recorded that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suits and the plaints were ordered to be returned to be presented to proper Court, and further it was directed that the plaintiff is entitled to proportionate costs from the defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the respective defendants in the suits referred to supra, had preferred these appeals. (4) Heard the counsel on record. (5) Sri Philkana Rama Rao, learned counsel representing the appellants in both these appeals would contend that when once the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits and returned the plaints, recording findings touching the merits of the matter, and also further awarding costs, would be wholly without jurisdiction and definitely erroneous. Learned counsel also in all fairness would submit that under Order XLIII-Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience), an appeal would lie as against such an order, but however, learned counsel would maintain that inasmuch as costs had been awarded, the same being a decree, inasmuch as, the plaintiff in the suits had not questioned the same by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, the respective defendants preferred these regular appeals. Hence, these regular appeals are perfectly maintainable. Hence, these regular appeals are perfectly maintainable. Even otherwise, the counsel would contend that while presenting these regular appeals, heavy Court fee had been paid, which need not have been paid, had the parties preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Hence, the learned counsel would contend that proper orders to be passed in this regard. (6) The counsel representing the respondent in these appeals had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that Order LXIII-Rule 1(a) of the Code does not draw a distinction in between the plaintiff and the defendant and who has to prefer a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against such an Order and hence, the regular appeals as such cannot be maintained. The counsel also would submit that inasmuch as, the findings on merits had been recorded in favour of the plaintiff in these suits instead of ordering return of the plaints, it would be just and proper to decree the suits. (7) The following points would arise for consideration in these appeals:- 1. Whether the learned Judge is justified in recording the findings on merits and also awarding proportionate costs while returning the plaints to be presented to proper Court? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? POINT NO.1:- (8) Order LXIII- Rule. 1 of the Code deals with the appeals from orders and under Order LXIII-Rule 1(a) of the Code specifies that an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely:- (a) an order under Rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court [except where the procedure specified in Rule 10-A of Order VII has been followed;] It is not in serious controversy that the procedure specified in Rule 10-A of Order VII of the Code had not been followed in these matters. Hence, in the light of the clear language referred to supra as against such orders, Civil Miscellaneous Appeals would lie. It is pertinent to note that while recording the findings on merits, on appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff was awarded proportionate costs. It is needless to say that awarding of proportionate costs also would amount to a decree. Hence, in the light of the clear language referred to supra as against such orders, Civil Miscellaneous Appeals would lie. It is pertinent to note that while recording the findings on merits, on appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff was awarded proportionate costs. It is needless to say that awarding of proportionate costs also would amount to a decree. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the respective appellants-defendants in the suits aforesaid thought of preferring these regular appeals by paying heavy Court fee instead of preferring Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by paying the fixed court fee to be payable on such Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. By that as it may, this Court is not inclined to go into the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also several findings which had been recorded in relation there to. (9) It is also brought to the notice of this Court that while returning the plaints, no time as such, had been fixed. In such matters, while returning the plaints, normally time to be granted for presentation of the plaints before the proper Court, if not, in several of the cases, the claims would be otherwise barred by limitation. POINT NO.2:- (10) In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the respondent- plaintiff in these suits, being O.S.No.96 of 1982 and O.S.No.97 of 1982, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, is hereby granted eight weeks time from this day to present the plaints before the appropriate Court, if the plaintiff is so advised. Except giving this liberty, nothing else can be done at this stage for the reason that the learned Judge recorded reasons in detail and came to the conclusion that the concerned Court has no territorial jurisdiction and thought of returning the plaints to be presented to proper Court. Recording of findings in detail touching the merits and demerits, would be totally unjustified in such cases. Apart from this aspect of the matter, imposing proportionate costs also would not be justified. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Judge touching the merits of these matters are hereby set-aside inclusive of awarding of the proportionate costs. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to present the plaints before the appropriate Court, if the plaintiff is so advised, within a period of eight weeks from today. (11) Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above with proportionate costs.