ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Mihir J. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Salil M. Thakore, learned counsel and Ms. Feresthe Shethna, learned counsel for the appellant through Video Conferencing. Mr. Sahil Thakore, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted written arguments through what's app, which is taken on record. 2. The present appeal under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2020 passed by learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Kalol, District Gandhinagar, whereby, the suit has been rejected for want of cause of action and jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (now referred as “the Code” for short). 3. The present appellant-Sintex Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for short) filed a suit for declaration, injunction and damages against 19 defendants under Sections 34, 37 and 40 of the Specific Reliefs Act and prayed as under: “(a) For an order of permanent mandatory injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from filing a Fraud Monitoring Return against the Plaintiff, or in the alternative, declaring any such purported Fraud Monitoring Return filed by Defendant No. 1 as illegal, null, void ab initio and non est. (b) For a permanent mandatory injunction restraining the Defendants, its agents, servants and representatives from acting in pursuance of and/or in any manner whatsoever publishing, notifying and/or further relying upon any such purported Fraud Monitoring Return filed by Defendant no. 1 with the Reserve Bank of India, including but not limited to adopting any coercive action based thereon against the Plaintiff and/or its directors and/or key managerial personnel. (c) For a decree of damages in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- (Rupees one Hundred Crores) in the event of wrongful institution of the purported Fraud Monitoring Return. (d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present suit, for an order of stay in relation to the effect and operation of any action taken, contemplated and/or threatened in pursuance of Defendant no. 100,00,00,000/- (Rupees one Hundred Crores) in the event of wrongful institution of the purported Fraud Monitoring Return. (d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present suit, for an order of stay in relation to the effect and operation of any action taken, contemplated and/or threatened in pursuance of Defendant no. 1’s purported Fraud Monitoring Return apprehended to have been lodged at the Central Fraud Registry maintained by the Reserve Bank of India, including but not limited to acting in pursuance thereof and/or in any manner whatsoever publishing, notifying and/or further relying thereupon and/or adopting any coercive action based thereon against the Plaintiff and/or its directors and/or key managerial personnel. (e) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present suit, for an order directing the Defendants to consider any resolution plan that may be filed by the Plaintiff in the best interests of the Project and all shareholders.” 4. The brief facts which can be gathered from the appeal are as under: 4.1. It is an admitted facts that, the plaintiff company availed term loan facility from a consortium of bank vide a common loan agreement dated 30.12.2016. The lenders to the company are Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Union Bank of India, Punjab and Sind Bank, Central Bank of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, State Bank of India, Andhra Bank, South Indian Bank, IDBI Bank, Karnataka Bank. In June, 2019, following adverse financial reason, leading eventually to the inability to the plaintiff company to service its obligation to lenders and accordingly, a forensic audit was ordered by the lender consortium. It is also admitted fact that, in parallel the lender consortium has declared the account of the company as Non Performing Account (NPA) on 31.08.2019. The forensic audit report is awaited. The observations of the forensic auditor offered to the plaintiff company, for comments, on 15.06.2020, in aid of examination of whether a willful default is committed by the company, in relation to meeting its loan obligation to the lender consortium, under RBI Master Circular on willful defaulters. It is alleged by the plaintiff company that, without prior inquiry or intimation to the plaintiff company and despite the forensic audit is awaited, lead bank will be in process to file fraud monitoring report (FMR). 4.2. It is alleged by the plaintiff company that, without prior inquiry or intimation to the plaintiff company and despite the forensic audit is awaited, lead bank will be in process to file fraud monitoring report (FMR). 4.2. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff company has filed the present suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages, asking the relief that, the lead bank may be restrained by issuing permanent mandatory injunction from filing a FMR report against the plaintiff or in the alternative, declaring any such purported report as illegal, null, void ab initio and non-est and further, asked by way of permanent mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from acting in pursuance of and/or in any manner publishing, notifying and/or further relying upon any such FMR and no any coercive action based thereon, would be taken and further, asked for a decree of damages in tune of Rs. 100 crores in the event of wrongful institution of purported Fraud Monitoring Report (FMR). In nut-shell, the plaintiff company has filed a suit for declaration, injunction and damages before the court of learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Kalol, District Gandhinagar. 4.3. The facts reveal that, upon presentation of the suit on 16.07.2020, it was kept on preliminary hearing. The ld. Trial Court after giving an opportunity of being heard on the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability, the learned trial Court was pleased to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and(d) of the Code. On the issue of jurisdiction, the findings and observations made by learned trial Court as follows: Jurisdiction:- (i) Ld. Civil Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the disputes raised in the suit. The learned trial Court has considered the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and SARFAESI Act, 2002 and came to the conclusion that, the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. The learned trial Court further held that, the efficacious remedy is available to redress the issue raised in the suit, more particularly, it is available to the plaintiff to ventilate the grievances under the Banking Ombudsmen Scheme, 2006 and accordingly, the suit is barred by the law. Ld. The learned trial Court further held that, the efficacious remedy is available to redress the issue raised in the suit, more particularly, it is available to the plaintiff to ventilate the grievances under the Banking Ombudsmen Scheme, 2006 and accordingly, the suit is barred by the law. Ld. Trial Court has further came to the conclusion that, the suit under the Specific Relief Act for declaration and injunction is also not maintainable as there was no any breach of obligation on the part of the defendants. The learned Trial Court has held that, the authorized person who has filed a suit having no any authority to file the legal proceedings on behalf of the company. It is further held that, the plaintiff company has no locus to ask relief on behalf of the Directors of the Company. It is further held that, the plaintiff company has suppressed the material facts with regard to the place of manufacturing and other facts in respect to Directors of the Company and on this count also, the suit is not maintainable. Cause of Action:- (ii) The learned Trial Court also rejected the plaint for want of cause of action. The learned trial Court while rejecting the plaint, came to the conclusion that the plaint is lacking on material pleadings and does not give rise to cause of action and the suit is vexatious, meritless and without cause of action. The learned Trial Court on the issue of nondisclosure of the cause of action further held that, the pleadings do not disclose cause of action. 5. Mr. Mihir Thakore, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and decree, raising the contention that, the learned Trial Court held that, Civil Court, Kalol has no territorial jurisdiction and court at Ahmedabad has jurisdiction so far claim of damage is concerned. On this aspect, Mr. Thakore submitted that, when the Court having no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, the learned Trial Court ought to have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper forum instead of rejecting whole suit under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code. Mr. Thakore has drawn attention of this Court towards the Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code. 6. Mr. Thakore, learned Sr. Mr. Thakore has drawn attention of this Court towards the Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code. 6. Mr. Thakore, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that, learned trial Court has also gone into the merits of the suit and for the reasons, which are enumerated in the written arguments, further submitted that, the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code. It was also submitted that, the learned trial Court has not considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Apple Sponge and Power Limited vs. Reserve Bank of India in Writ Petition (C) No. 306/2019 and the judgment of the ld. City Civil Court at Bombay rendered in the case of Sunil Ratnakar Gutte vs. UCO Bank on the maintainability of the suit and according to Mr. Thakore, learned trial Court has passed the reasoning on pattern error of law while distinguishing the applicability of several judgments cited by the appellant. Mr. Thakore further submitted that, without prejudice to the preliminary contentions as to jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Code and other contentions raised in the appeal including that all findings of law and observations recorded in the impugned judgment and decree are completely erroneous and liable to be set aside. He further submits that, in view of the common loan agreement which stipulates the Court at Ahmedabad will have jurisdiction, the appellant is entitled, inter-alia, presented the suit to the Commercial Court at Ahmedabad and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have returned the plaint for its presentation. Mr. Thakore referring Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code submitted that, in view of the aforesaid, ends of justice would be served by passing appropriate order of returning the plaint as provided under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code and additionally, all the observations made in the impugned judgment and decree may be expunged and/or set aside and it is prayed for. The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant stated at bar that, in view of the terms and conditions of the common loan agreement (clause 8.6), the Ahmedabad Court has jurisdiction to settle any dispute. The learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant stated at bar that, in view of the terms and conditions of the common loan agreement (clause 8.6), the Ahmedabad Court has jurisdiction to settle any dispute. The plaintiff is ready to withdraw the suit for presentation to the proper forum or Court, which may pass necessary order under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code to return the plaint for presentation to the proper forum. Mr. Thakore, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant further stated at bar that, in view of the terms and conditions of the common loan agreement, more particularly clause 8.6, the Court at Ahmedabad shall have territorial jurisdiction to settle any dispute. Mr. Thakore also alternately submitted that, the appellant - plaintiff is ready and willing to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit before the competent court. 7. We have perused the plaint and the impugned judgment and decree and have also considered the submissions made orally and written made by learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant. 8. The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant proves that, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law and trial Court has grossly erred in believing that, the suit is liable to be rejected for want of cause of action, barred by law and jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code? 9. After going through the findings recorded by the ld. Trial Court, more particularly page 7 of the judgment, the learned Trial Court has clearly come to the conclusion that “the plaintiff has prayed relief against defendant No. 1 who carries business at Ahmedabad. Therefore, even for the suit for damages, the court at Ahmedabad has jurisdiction and this Court does not have jurisdiction.” This shows that, the findings on the issue of jurisdiction recorded by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that, the Court at Kalol has no any territorial jurisdiction to try or adjudicate the issue involved in the suit. It is settled that, every Court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it cannot exercise its jurisdiction. Even as per the statement made by Mr. Thakore, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant, the Court at Ahmedabad has territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue raised in the plaint. 10. It is settled that, every Court has its own local or territorial limits beyond which it cannot exercise its jurisdiction. Even as per the statement made by Mr. Thakore, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant, the Court at Ahmedabad has territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue raised in the plaint. 10. At this stage, it is necessary to refer the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the code, which says under what circumstances, the plaint should be returned, which reads as under: “Return of plaint - (1) 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. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint, under this sub-rule. (2) Procedure on returning plaint - On returning a plaint, the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.” Thus, under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code, when the Court before which the suit has been presented, having no territorial jurisdiction, the same can be returned back to the plaintiff to be presented to the Court in which the suit would have been instituted having territorial jurisdiction and the plaint can be returned under this provision and the same can be done even at the appellate stage. At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the case of R.S.D.V. Finance Company Ltd. vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. 1993 (2) SCC 130 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, when the Court finds and comes to the conclusion that, the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the only course to be adopted in such circumstances was to return the suit for presentation to the proper Court and not to dismiss the suit. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others, Manu/0132/2015, rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold and the Apex Court has observed thus in Para 5:- “5. Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the trial.” 11. Upon examining the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we find that in view of the common loan agreement and so also the statement made by Mr. Thakore, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant at bar, the Court at Kalol had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in the suit. In view of the fact, we are therefore of the opinion that the learned trial Court has committed error, whereby, while examining the admissibility of the suit, the trial court having found that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for its presentations to the competent jurisdictional Court. It should not have embarked upon the scrutiny of the contentions raised in the suit on merits of it, keeping it open for the competent jurisdictional Court to decide the same. It should not have embarked upon the scrutiny of the contentions raised in the suit on merits of it, keeping it open for the competent jurisdictional Court to decide the same. In such situation, only course which was required to be adopted was to return the plaint for its presentation to the proper court having territorial jurisdiction under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code. The other observations made on merits are totally uncalled for and therefore, the same are hereby quashed and set aside. It would be open for the Court having territorial jurisdiction to decide the same after hearing the plaintiff-appellant. In view of the aforesaid observations, the alternative submissions made by Mr. Thakore, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner - to permit him to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same grounds, is not required to be considered. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code are not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same are set aside. The plaint be returned to the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 10 of the code for presentation to the competent Court. After the plaint is so presented to the court having jurisdiction, the case shall be decided by such Court, in according with law, on its own merits without in any manner being influenced by the observations made by this Court. Present appeal is, thus, partly allowed. The plaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the plaintiff-appellant herein for its presentation before the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. The Trial Court is directed to return the plaint accordingly. Decree stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. In view of the order passed in this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant does not press Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 and Civil Application No. 2 of 2020. Hence, both civil applications stand disposed of.