ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2024 passed on I.A. No. 9 by the LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Commercial O.S. No. 780/2022, the defendant therein has preferred this writ petition. 2. The respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the defendant in Commercial O.S. No. 780/2022. The respondent has filed Commercial O.S. No. 780/2022 on the ground that the petitioner approached the respondent for supply of SOYA DOC to the defendant. That respondent has been supplying the said material on a regular basis. That the petitioner committed default in payment of Rs.9,55,912/-. Hence, Commercial O.S. No. 780/2022 is filed with a prayer to recover the said amount along with interest thereon. 3. The plaint reveals that the address of the petitioner, who is the defendant before the trial Court is at Salem. The address of the respondent, who is the plaintiff is at Bengaluru. The pleadings in the plaint does not reveal where the transaction took place and where the petitioner was required to pay the money to the respondent. 4. As per Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (CPC) the Courts situated at the place where defendant resides or where the cause of action either in full or part had arisen will have the jurisdiction to try the suit. A bare reading of the plaint does not reveal as to where the cause of action arose in the instant case. Hence, the petitioner herein, who is the defendant, filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer to return the plaint to be presented before the appropriate Court. The trial Court on the ground that the said application can be made only by the plaintiff and not by the defendant and also on the ground that the transaction reveals that the cause of action has arisen at Bengaluru as the defendant was required to make payment to the Bank of plaintiff at HDFC, M.G. Road, Bengaluru, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The case of the petitioner is that even defendant is entitled to make necessary application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and the trial Court is required to consider the pleadings made in the plaint to determine whether it reveals where the cause of action arose and in the instant case, the plaint does not reveal the place where the cause of action arose and hence, the trial Court ought to have returned back the plaint to be presented before the appropriate Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 100173/2024 and submits that defendant is not entitled to make an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. He further submits that reading of the plaint document along with the plaint does reveal the cause of action arose in Bengaluru. 7. The questions that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition are: (i) Whether only plaintiff is entitled to make an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC or can defendant also maintain an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. (ii) Whether the plaint reveals that the cause of action or a part of it arose in Bengaluru. 8. Order VII Rue 10 of CPC reads as under: “10. Return of plaint: (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, 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.” 9. This Court while examining the aforementioned provision in W.P. No. 100173/2024 which is decided on 22.01.2024 in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 has held as under: “6. This Court while examining the aforementioned provision in W.P. No. 100173/2024 which is decided on 22.01.2024 in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 has held as under: “6. A perusal of the said provision would only indicate that, in the event of suit being presented before the Court which does not have the pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction over the mater, an application could be made under the said provision for return of the plaint to be presented before the appropriate forum, or subject to the provision of Rule 10A of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the Court comes to the conclusion on its own motion that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain a particular suit. 7. In the present case, the application is made by the defendant for return of the plaint, which, I am of the considered opinion, cannot be so done by the defendant. The defendant is entitled to take a defence as regards lack of jurisdiction, which would have to be considered by the Court on merits in terms of the applicable law including Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, either after the trial or as preliminary issue which can so permissible under Sub-Rule (2) of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 10. However, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6789/2023 decided subsequently on 22.04.2024 in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 has held as under: “10. Yet another submission is made by the learned counsel for respondent that an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC could not have been maintained by the present petitioners/the defendants before the concerned Court. I decline to accept the said submission. Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC reads as follows: “10. 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. 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.” Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC permits filing of an application for return of plaint. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 permits the concerned Court to return the plaint to be presented before the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. The procedure to be followed on returning the plaint is dealt with under sub-section (2) of Section 10. Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC touches upon the jurisdiction of a Court to have entertained a suit. The question of jurisdiction cuts at the root of the matter, and if the Court has no jurisdiction territorial or otherwise, to entertain a plaint, it cannot. Who brings up the issue before the concerned Court is immaterial, as Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC nowhere indicates that it is only to be filed by the plaintiff and not the defendant. What is brought to the notice of the Court qua jurisdiction is what is important and not who brings it. In a given case, a defendant/s has/have a right to file application or even raise an oral objection for raising grounds based on Order VII Rule 10 or Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court cannot direct the defendant to file a written statement for raising objections, if he does not desire to do so. But if he chooses to do so, it is an altogether a different circumstance, which is not the circumstance in the case at hand. 11. The present application in the case at hand under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, is filed by the defendant. But if he chooses to do so, it is an altogether a different circumstance, which is not the circumstance in the case at hand. 11. The present application in the case at hand under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, is filed by the defendant. Though the Court does not reject the application on the said ground of it being filed by the defendant, since the submission is made, I have deemed it appropriate to consider the said submission and answer it holding that the defendant also has a right to file an application seeking return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, for want of jurisdiction of a particular Court, to try the suit. The submission that it is the right of the plaintiff only, stands repelled.” 11. The aforementioned decisions are contrary to each other, wherein in the earlier judgment it has been held that only the plaintiff can maintain an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of plaint. Whereas in the latest judgment it has been held that even the defendant can maintain an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. 12. Bare perusal of Order VII Rule 10 of CPC reveals that the provision does not bar the defendant from making an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. Under the said circumstances, I am inclined to accept the reasoning rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6789/2023 and not in W.P. No. 100173/2024. Further, W.P. No. 6789/2023 is the latest judgment and is pronounced subsequent to the order passed in W.P. No. 100173/2024. Further, under the circumstances, the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 100173/2024 has to be held as per incuriam as it has not taken into consideration that Order VII Rule 10 of CPC does not bar the defendant from making an application before the trial Court. 13. Having answered the first question in favour of the petitioner herein, with regard to the second question, paragraph No. 10 of the plaint mentions about the cause of action and it reads as under: “10. The cause of action for the suit arose on 01-04-2020, the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant company is a commercial transaction within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.” 14. The cause of action for the suit arose on 01-04-2020, the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant company is a commercial transaction within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.” 14. Even on reading the plaint in its entirety, there is no pleading as to where the agreement was entered into between the parties, where the money had to be paid by defendant/petitioner to plaintiff/respondent. Thus, it has to be concluded that the pleadings in the plaint does not reveal where the cause of action has arisen. There is only a mere mention of breach of agreement due to non-payment of money. It does not state that it had to be paid in HDFC Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Bengaluru as recorded by the trial Court. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/defendant is required to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed on I.A. No. 9 filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC in Com. O.S. No. 780/2022 by the Court of LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. (iii) I.A. No. 9 filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC by the petitioner/defendant is hereby allowed. (iv) The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff/respondent herein to be presented before the appropriate Court. (v) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.