Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 8/1991/A. The said suit was filed seeking following reliefs: “(A) (i) That this Court be pleased to declare that the purported termination of the agreement dated 6th June, 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th November, 1984 is invalid and bad in law and that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree is valid and subsisting and that it presently stands renewed for three years from 6th June, 1990. (ii) Consequent upon the declaration that the Agreement dated 6th June 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th Nov. 1984 is valid and subsisting, the Court be pleased to declare that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree stands renewed further for period of every three year from 6th June 1990 till end of such period of three years during which the Court passes its judgment and order or till any such period the Court deems proper after the judgment and order and also further order and declare that the Defendants shall continue to renew the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree every three years thereafter at the option of the plaintiff. (B) That this Court be pleased to issue a permanent order and injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 his servants and agents from:- (i) committing a breach of the said Agreement (ii) from interfering with or obstructing the plaintiffs from extracting and transporting ore from the said mine-Area 75 (iii) from extracting or allowing any person other than the plaintiffs from extracting the iron ore from the said mine.” 3. Respondent no. 1 contested the suit on merits as well as on the ground that the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco-da-Gama has no territorial jurisdiction. The learned trial Judge, thereafter framed the issues. Issue no. 5 was “Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction?”. The learned Judge, after hearing both sides and considering the provisions of Section 16 clause (d) of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C., for short) along with the averments made in the plaint, held that the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco-da-Gama has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Issue no. 5, accordingly, was answered in the affirmative. The learned Judge, after hearing both sides and considering the provisions of Section 16 clause (d) of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C., for short) along with the averments made in the plaint, held that the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco-da-Gama has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Issue no. 5, accordingly, was answered in the affirmative. The learned trial Judge, despite answering issue no. 5 in the affirmative, entered into the merits of the matter and dismissed the suit on merits. 4. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant accepts the finding of the learned Judge regarding the territorial jurisdiction. He submits that the trial Judge, having concluded that he has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, could not have entered into the merits of the suit and dismissed the same on merits. He further submits that the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division of Quepem would be having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's plaint. 5. We find substance in the argument of Mr. Bhobe. The trial Court, in our considered opinion, having found that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff under order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. to present the same before the proper Court. The impugned judgment and decree, therefore, cannot be sustained. 6. In the above circumstances, the appeal is disposed of by passing the following order : (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree is quashed and set aside. However, the finding of the learned Judge that Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco-da-Gama has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's suit, is confirmed. Accordingly, the plaint shall be returned to the appellant to present the same to the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. (iii) The appellant, as submitted by Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the appellant, shall present the plaint to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem within two weeks from the date of return of Record and Proceedings from this Court. (iv) Registry is directed to return the record and proceedings to the concerned Court expeditiously.