Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the sole surviving defendant in OS.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, aggrieved by docket order, dated 19-12-2011, passed therein. A few facts, which need to be stated for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as under: The respondent has initially filed OS.No.98 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein and his father Gudur Seetharam. In IA.No.239 of 2010 filed by him, an ad interim injunction was granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. After the defendants filed the written statement, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration of title wherein the market value of the suit schedule property was shown as Rs.11,52,000/- and the suit was revalued at half of the market value which came to Rs.5,76,000/-. Consequently, the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Junior Civil Judge. Therefore, the respondent appeared to have filed an application under Order VII Rule 10-A (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), for return of the plaint. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, has passed docket order, dated 20-09-2011, wherein, while referring to the above facts, he has posted the case for counter to 29-09-2011. Even though the parties before this Court have not filed any order passed subsequently by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, from the subsequent events, it appears that the said Court has eventually returned the plaint for being presented in the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. The respondent has, accordingly, represented the plaint in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla. By docket order, dated 19-11-2011, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, accepted the valuation, directed renumbering of the suit and called for the remaining record from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. Accordingly, the suit was renumbered as OS.No.94 of 2011. As regards the injunction application, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, passed a docket order on 19-12-2011 directing renumbering of the IA and posting of the case for enquiry on 05-01-2012. Accordingly, the suit was renumbered as OS.No.94 of 2011. As regards the injunction application, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, passed a docket order on 19-12-2011 directing renumbering of the IA and posting of the case for enquiry on 05-01-2012. The petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by Order, dated 19-12-2011, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, to the extent of his calling for remaining record from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, and continuing the injunction application from the stage at which it was returned by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. At the hearing, Mr.P.V.Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that when once the plaint is returned for presentation in proper court, the proceedings in the Court, which returned the plaint, end and the order, if any, passed by the Court returning the plaint will not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff. He has further submitted that as representation of the plaint in the proper Court constitutes filing of a fresh suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, committed a serious jurisdictional error in treating the injunction application as continuation of the proceedings from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, and calling for remaining record from the said Court. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in MusunuruKasi Annapurnamma vs. Musunuru Seshaiah and another (1983) APLJ 311) and Mohd.MustafaShareef vs. Masoom Ali Mohalla Committee, Warangal and others ( 2011 (4) ALD 614 ). Mr.P.GiriKrishna, learned Counsel for the respondent, while broadly accepting the above-submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that when the suit for permanent injunction was filed, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, had jurisdiction to entertain the same and pass the order of injunction; that the said Court has lost jurisdiction only on account of the amendment of the suit consequent on enhancement of valuation of the suit and that the injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, would, therefore, enure to the benefit of the plaintiff till the injunction application is disposed of by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla. InMusunuru Kasi Annapurnamma (1 supra), a similar situation arose where before the plaint was returned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, an injunction was granted by the District Munsif’s Court. InMusunuru Kasi Annapurnamma (1 supra), a similar situation arose where before the plaint was returned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, an injunction was granted by the District Munsif’s Court. When a CMA filed against the said order of injunction was pending, the District Munsif’s Court returned the plaint as it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction and for being presented before the proper Court. Accordingly, the plaint was represented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The Court dealing with CMA has considered this subsequent event and held that the injunction order granted by the District Munsif’s Court before it has returned the suit was void as the District Munsif Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In that background of the case, Justice K.Ramaswamy, as he then was, held as under: “Thus, it is a settled position of law that the Court having no pecuniary jurisdiction when entertain a suit but ultimately when it found that it lacks jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, it is not a continuation of the earlier proceedings initiated in the competent court and the starting point of the date on which the suit is instituted is the date of re-presentation to the competent court having jurisdiction All the proceedings taken in the Court of first instance are thereby rendered void land of no consequence. Thereby, the proceedings before the Court of first instance are nullity. In this case, the Court of the District Munsif itself found to have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Thereafter, it must be held that the court of the District Munsif lacks inherent jurisdiction to seisin of the cause. Under those circumstances, the ad-interim injunction issued by the Court of the District Munsif is nothing but a nullity. On a consideration of the authorities referred to above and on the facts of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the Court of District Munsif has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It lacks inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings initiated before that Court are without jurisdiction and a nullity. The consequential proceedings taken interlocutory stages are also a nullity. Therefore, the lower appellate Court is well justified in holding the order under appeal is illegal. It lacks inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings initiated before that Court are without jurisdiction and a nullity. The consequential proceedings taken interlocutory stages are also a nullity. Therefore, the lower appellate Court is well justified in holding the order under appeal is illegal. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in its exercise by the lower appellate Court and no material irregularity has been committed by it. Therefore, there is no case made out warranting interference by this Court in revision. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.” The only distinction between the case in MusunuruKasi Annapurnamma (1 supra) and the present case is that in former case, the suit was filed in the Court having no pecuniary jurisdiction whereas in the present case, when the suit was filed, the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, had jurisdiction, but however, with the amendment of the suit, the said Court has lost jurisdiction. Even though the injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, till the amendment of the suit was not void or a nullity, the said order will lose its efficacy as with the amendment of the plaint which resulted in enhancement in the valuation of the suit, the said Court has lost pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the suit. However, the principle laid down in MusunuruKasi Annapurnamma (1 supra) would apply to this case as well and the order of injunction looses its force from the time the Court, which granted it, has returned the plaint. Similar is the effect of the judgment in Mohd.MustafaShareef (2 supra) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that when a plaint is returned for presentation before proper Court under Order VII Rule 10-A of the Code, the plaint alone is returned and as such, the Court to which the plaint was later on presented will have to commence the proceedings on such plaint afresh and that the plaint so represented is not a continuation of the plaint presented in the former Court, whether for the purpose of limitation or for court fees or in any other respect, and that the plaint so presented in the proper Court is the fresh presentation of the plaint requiring all proceedings thereof to be taken up de novo. The learned Judge has distinguished between the representation of the plaint on account of the original Court not having/losing jurisdiction and the transfer of suit from one Court to the other. Applying the above principles of law to the case on hand, I have no hesitation to hold that the injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff ceased to be in force from the time the said Court has returned the plaint. The proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, should, therefore, commence de novo as if it is a fresh suit. On the analysis as above, Order, dated 19-11-2011, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, in OS.No.94 of 2011, calling for the remaining record from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside. The respondent/plaintiff is, however, given liberty to take return of the remaining record, if any, in addition to the plaint from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, and represent the same before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla shall proceed with the IA and the suit treating the same as fresh proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel, CRPMP.No.2029 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.