JUDGMENT : SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J. 1. The above Commercial Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 06.09.2021 passed in Commercial O.S.No.3468/2018 by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. 2. By way of the said order, an application which has been filed by appellant Nos.1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) came to be rejected. In the said application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, the contention raised by the appellants was that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable before the Commercial Court as the same is barred by Sections 280 and 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”) and the proceedings ought to have been filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru. 3. The Commercial Court, after considering the matter, has dismissed the said application by holding that an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC would be maintainable only when a suit has been filed in a wrong forum inasmuch as, the suit ought to have been filed in a different Court, but had been filed in a wrong Court. 4. In the present case what is sought to be contended by Sri A.G.Shivanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that instead of a suit, the proceedings under the Act of 2013 was maintainable before NCLT and not that a suit has to be filed before any other Court. 5. We do not find anything wrong in the finding of the Commercial Court inasmuch as Order VII Rule 10 of CPC provides for a plaint to be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted and the procedure thereof has been provided under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, wherein the Court returning the plaint is required to indicate the Court in which the plaint has to be presented and the time period in which the plaint is required to be presented. 6. In the present matter even if the application, where for a moment considered to be maintainable and the plaint was to be rejected, the said Court could not have directed presentation of the same before NCLT because NCLT is not a Court which is contemplated under Order VII Rule 10 or Order VII Rule 10A of CPC. 6. In the present matter even if the application, where for a moment considered to be maintainable and the plaint was to be rejected, the said Court could not have directed presentation of the same before NCLT because NCLT is not a Court which is contemplated under Order VII Rule 10 or Order VII Rule 10A of CPC. Thus, an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is not maintainable. 7. It is also of significance to note that on an earlier occasion appellant Nos.1 and 2 had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) to 11(d) of CPC contending that the suit was not maintainable, since it is barred by law. However, the said application was dismissed for non-prosecution, which has not been challenged. 8. In view of the same, when an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC not being maintainable in the said circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Commercial Court in rejecting the said application. There being no grounds made out in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 9. Pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is hence disposed of.