JUDGMENT : Chitambaresh, J. True it is that the court of the Munsiff of Ernakulam had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain O.S. No. 676 of 2012 on 10.8.2012 as the suit was one for mandatory and prohibitory injunction. But the plaint was returned to be presented before the proper court after amendment on 4.11.2013 by incorporating the reliefs of return of money and damages. The plaintiff firm secured registration in the meanwhile on 5.9.2012 well before the plaint was re-presented on 4.11.2013 before the court of the Subordinate Judge. It cannot therefore be said that O.S. No. 505 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge is hit by Section 69(1) of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 2. The following excerpts are profitable:- i. Amar Chand Inani Vs. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 313 "8........It was, however, argued by Counsel for the appellant that the suit instituted in the Trial Court by the presentation of the plaint after it was returned for presentation to the proper Court was a continuation of the suit filed in the Karnal Court and, therefore, the suit filed in Karnal court must be deemed to have been filed in the trial Court. We think there is no substance in the argument, for, when the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court and was presented in that Court, the suit can be deemed to be instituted in the proper Court only when the plaint was presented in that Court. In other words the suit instituted in the trial Court by the presentation of the plaint returned by the Panipat Court was not a continuation of the suit filed in the Karnal Court (see the decisions in Hirachand Succaram Gandhy Vs. G.I.P. Rly.Co., AIR 1928 Bom 421, Bimla Prasad Mukerji Vs. Lal Moni Devi, AIR 1926 Cal 355, and Ram Kishun Vs. Ashirbad, ILR 29 Pat 699 : AIR 1950 Pat 478 ." ii. ONGC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Modern Construction and Co., AIR 2014 SC 83 : "13. G.I.P. Rly.Co., AIR 1928 Bom 421, Bimla Prasad Mukerji Vs. Lal Moni Devi, AIR 1926 Cal 355, and Ram Kishun Vs. Ashirbad, ILR 29 Pat 699 : AIR 1950 Pat 478 ." ii. ONGC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Modern Construction and Co., AIR 2014 SC 83 : "13. .........However, after presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be conducted de novo even if it stood concluded before the court having no competence to try the same." The fact that the court of the Munsiff had the jurisdiction to entertain O.S. No. 676 of 2012 does not mean that O.S. No. 505 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge is a continuation. The suit in O.S. No. 505 of 2013 is to be considered as a new one filed by a registered partnership firm which cannot be said to be not maintainable in law. 3. The impugned judgment is set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law with specific direction to answer all the issues framed. The court fee paid on the memorandum of Regular First Appeal shall be refunded to the appellant and the parties shall appear in the court below on 15.12.2016. Every endeavour shall be made by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam to dispose of the suit before the onset of the summer vacation in the year 2017. The Regular First Appeal is allowed. No costs.