Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1901 (ALL)

ISLAM HUSSAIN v. XVth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI

2017-08-18

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. 1. The petition is listed in the daily cause list and it has been called out. No one appears to press the petition. 2. I have perused the petition and the impugned order dated 04.09.1999. The record reveals that Original Suit No. 315 of 1975 Islam Hussain Vs. State of U.P. was dismissed on 31.05.1977 on the ground that it is not maintainable and the court before whom the suit was instituted has no jurisdiction. 3. In appeal, the contention was that if the court lacked jurisdiction, the plaint should have been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the court of proper jurisdiction instead of dismissing the suit. 4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the matter was contested and in view of the fact that the petitioners have not intimated the court where they proposed to present the plaint after its return, the court of first instance dismissed the suit. 5. Order 7 Rule 10 CPC provides for return of the plaint subject to provisions of Rule 10-A for presentation to the proper court in which the suit should have been instituted. 6. Order 7 Rule 10-A (2) obliges the plaintiff to make an application to the court specifying the court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return. 7. The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in the suit, have not specified the court where they propose to present the plaint on its return. Thus, there was no defined court to which the plaint could be presented after its return. Therefore, the order of return of the plaint could not have served any purpose. 8. In view of the above, the court was left with no option but to dismiss the suit as the court was not competent to take cognisance of the same and the petitioners have failed to disclose the proper court of jurisdiction where they proposed to present the plaint on being returned. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no error or illegality of the nature, which may result in any miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. 10. The writ petition as such lacks merit and is dismissed.