1. This is a Civil 2nd Appeal. 2. Heard. I have perused the record. 3. The question raised in this appeal is whether the trial Court after finding lack of jurisdiction to hear the suit should have returned the plaint to the appellant (plaintiff) in terms of the Order VII Rule 10 CPC? 4. Ld. trial Court has dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction and Id. 1st Appellate Court has upheld the order. 5. Briefly, facts relevant for this appeal are that appellant filed a suit before the Id. Sub-Judge, Kulgam seeking declaratory decree, declaring that the land measuring 02 kanals 09 marlas falling under survey no.123 min of village, Munand Goffan, Tehsil; Kulgam is Wakaf property and respondents (defendants) have no right to make any encroachment in that land. Respondents contested this suit contending inter alia that in an application filed by inhabitants of the village on 24. 01. 2005, Special Officer, Auqaf, J & K Government, vide his order dated 16. 03. 2006 has declared that only land measuring 01 kanal and 13 marlas under Survey No. 132, comprising 05 marlas as Masjid and 01 kanal 08 marlas as Eidgah, was the Wakaf property. 6. Ld. trial Court framed six issues in the case and took up issue no.5, which reads, "Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit?" as preliminary issue. 7. Ld. trial Court after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that under sec.5(1) of the J & K Wakfs Act (for short the Act), the decision of the Special Officer is final subject to appeal before the Government, which has not been filed, and that under sec. 5(3) of the said Act, civil court has no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which by or under that Act is required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by Special Officer. Ld. trial Court by its order dated 25. 4. 2009, therefore, dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. 8. Appellant challenged the order passed by ld. trial Court in appeal before ld. Principal District Judge, Kulgam, Appellate Court, however, by its order dated 1.7.2011 upheld the order of the trial Court on similar grounds and dismissed the appeal. 9. Appellant has challenged the orders passed by the ld. trial Court and the ld. 8. Appellant challenged the order passed by ld. trial Court in appeal before ld. Principal District Judge, Kulgam, Appellate Court, however, by its order dated 1.7.2011 upheld the order of the trial Court on similar grounds and dismissed the appeal. 9. Appellant has challenged the orders passed by the ld. trial Court and the ld. appellate Court in this civil 2nd appeal. 10. Mr. M. M. Iqbal, ld. counsel for the appellant sought to project that ld. trial Court having found lack of jurisdiction to hear the suit was required to return the plaint for its presentation before the competent court to the appellant in terms of O. VII R. 10 CPC. He argued that order of dismissal passed by the ld. trial Court is illegal being contrary to the mandate of O. VII R. 10 CPC. In support of his argument, he relied upon judgment reported as AIR 1965 SC 338 . Per contra, Mr. H. A. Wani, ld. counsel for respondents supported the orders. He argued that, having found that the order passed by the Special Officer was appealable before the Government, plaint could not have been returned to the appellant because such a suit did not lie before any other court or forum. 11. Order VII Rule 10(1) reads, "Subject to the provisions of rule 10-A, 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." 12. Rule 10(1) of Order VII CPC on plain but careful reading would show that return of plaint by the court, on account of lack of jurisdiction to hear the suit, is not ceremonial to be followed in every such case. Plaint is required to be returned not simply because the court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. It is returned for being presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. The underlying purpose of returning a plaint precisely is to enable the plaintiff to present the same plaint to the court of competent jurisdiction. This underlying purpose would give two fold jurisdictions even to the court which has no jurisdiction to hear a suit, that is, the court in which the suit has been filed. The underlying purpose of returning a plaint precisely is to enable the plaintiff to present the same plaint to the court of competent jurisdiction. This underlying purpose would give two fold jurisdictions even to the court which has no jurisdiction to hear a suit, that is, the court in which the suit has been filed. The jurisdiction is to determine and say; i) that the said court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit and ii) that some other court has the jurisdiction to hear that suit. Only after determination of these two points in affirmative, plaint can be returned to the plaintiff for being presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. In order to seek return of the plaint, plaintiff must show and court must be satisfied that the said suit should have been filed in another Court. 13. Viewed, thus, a plaint need not be returned to the plaintiff if plaintiff fails to satisfy the court that the suit lies in another court, where it will be instituted after return of the plaint. 14. I have carefully gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devsthan v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338 , relied upon by the ld. appellant's counsel. Reading the judgment in entirety would, in my considered view, show that Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid as a general rule that in every case it is imperative for the court, finding lack of jurisdiction to hear a suit, to return the plaint to the plaintiff, in disregard of the question whether the suit would lie in another Court/Forum or not. In that case, High Court of Madras in appeal, while disagreeing with the trial court, had found that `the suit could be instituted only in the Revenue Court and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it'. The High Court, therefore, set aside the decree which the trial Court had passed and ordered return of the plaint to the plaintiff-appellant for presentation to the proper Court. The High Court, however, further dismissed the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-appellant with respect to trial Court's allowing credit of a payment of Rs.1,000/- towards rent or damages due from the defendant-respondent. The High Court, however, further dismissed the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-appellant with respect to trial Court's allowing credit of a payment of Rs.1,000/- towards rent or damages due from the defendant-respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed with the view taken by the High Court of Madras and observed that "the High Court is right in holding that the Revenue Court alone has the jurisdiction over the suit and therefore in ordering the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court." (para. 8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, further up-held the contention that `when the Civil Court had no jurisdiction over the suit, the High Court could not have dealt with the cross-objection filed by the appellant with respect to the adjustment of certain amount paid by the respondent' and observed further that `when the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint.' (para. 9) 15. In that, as it was found that the suit did not lie before the Civil Court and could have been instituted only in Revenue Court, the plaint was required to be returned to the plaintiff. The purpose and object of return of the plaint was that in consonance with the spirit of O. VII R. 10, the same plaint could have been presented to the concerned Revenue Court. Neither the High Court of Madras nor Hon'ble Supreme Court had gone into the question of interpretation of O. VII R. 10(1) CPC because the case was covered under the plain language of the rule. 16. The legal position thus arising under O. VII R. 10 CPC is that plaint needs to be returned to the plaintiff only when the court finds that i) it lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit and (ii) the suit should have been instituted in another court. Plaint need not be returned if plaintiff fails to show and it cannot be said that the suit lies in another court. There may be a suit which lies nowhere, neither in the court in which it had been filed nor in any other court/forum and the remedy lies somewhere else. Plaint need not be returned if plaintiff fails to show and it cannot be said that the suit lies in another court. There may be a suit which lies nowhere, neither in the court in which it had been filed nor in any other court/forum and the remedy lies somewhere else. Such suits may have been filed with some hidden strategy like to gain time or to secure a suitable short term relief. In such a case benefit of O. VII R. 10 will not be available to the plaintiff and plaint need not be returned to him. 17. In taking the view that return of plaint is not sine qua non, I draw support from decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Suguna Poultry Farm Ltd. v. Arul Mariamman Textiles Ltd., AIR 2005 Madras 72. In this case the plaintiff had filed the suit in Pollachi, Sub-Court which had no jurisdiction at all since the subject-matter of the suit was situated within the jurisdiction of another Court. High Court in this case had refused to order return of the plaint to the plaintiff taking the view that; "20. the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to return the plaint, at any stage, for presentation in proper Court, having jurisdiction. In my considered opinion, the plaintiff/first respondent in this case is not entitled to the benefit of the said section, since as aforementioned, with ulterior motive, knowing fully well that the Sub-Court, Pollachi had no jurisdiction, he has filed the suit, thereby compelled the revision-petitioners also, to come to this Court, necessarily. Considering the attitude of the plaintiff, choosing the Court of his choice, the plaint need not be ordered to be returned to be presented before the Court, in which the suit should have originally been instituted, following the procedure contemplated under Order VII, Rule 10, 10 (a) of CPC. The entire conduct of the plaintiff brought to surface his evil idea, to obtain an order behind the back of the parties, who are interested in the property and such a person need not be shown any leniency. In this view, instead of ordering return of plaint, I am constrained to strike out O.S No.264/2003 from the file of the Sub-Court, Pollachi, since it had no jurisdiction, thereby ordering the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, to delete the suit from the file'. 18. In this view, instead of ordering return of plaint, I am constrained to strike out O.S No.264/2003 from the file of the Sub-Court, Pollachi, since it had no jurisdiction, thereby ordering the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, to delete the suit from the file'. 18. Now coming to the case under consideration, the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court would show that the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration that the suit land, that is, land measuring 2 kanals and 9 marlas comprised in survey no. 132 min. is a Wakaf property. Defendants had pointed out before the ld. trial Court that the matter was earlier considered by the Special Officer under Wakafs Act on an application moved by the inhabitants of the village who had found that only one kanal and 13 marlas of the land comprised in the said survey No. was Wakaf Property. 19. Under sec.5(1) of the Act, the question as to whether a particular property is or not Wakaf property is to be decided by Special Officer under the Act and his decision in this regard, subject to appeal before the Government, would be final. Sec. 5(3) bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle, decide or deal with and question or to determine any matter which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with or to be determined by Special Officer. Bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Court is further imposed by sec. 62 of the Act, which reads: "62. Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any civil court or tribunal in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the title of any Wakaf or Wakaf property or any other matter which is required by or under, this Act to be determined by the authorities under the Act." 20. Say briefly, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is totally barred so no suit for declaring a particular property as Wakaf property can be filed before a Civil Court. In face of this specific bar, no suit could have been filed by plaintiff. 21. Whether a particular property is or not a Wakaf property is to be decided by a Special Officer under the Act. In face of this specific bar, no suit could have been filed by plaintiff. 21. Whether a particular property is or not a Wakaf property is to be decided by a Special Officer under the Act. The Act does not provide for a suit for declaration in this regard. The suit for declaration filed before the ld. trial Court could not have been filed before any other Court/Authority, even if, plaint was returned to the plaintiff. The ld. counsel for appellant, in the course of hearing, when pointedly asked in this regard, was not in a position to say convincingly as to where the suit would have been filed by presenting the same plaint, if the plaint was returned to the plaintiff, though the ld. counsel maintained that plaint should have been returned. 22. The suit of the plaintiff being not maintainable before the ld. trial Court and there being no possibility of filing such a suit before some other Court/Forum, there was no point in returning the plaint to the plaintiff. The only option before the ld. trial Court was to dismiss the suit, which has been rightly exercised. 23. For all what has been said and discussed above, I find no merit in this Civil 2nd Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.