ORDER : S. B. PD. SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shambhu Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This civil miscellaneous application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying therein for the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this civil miscellaneous petition is being filed on behalf of petitioner above named, for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.05.2022 passed in Title Suit No. 05 of 2018, by the learned Sub-Judge Dhamdaha, whereby and whereunder learned court below rejected the petition filed by the defendant- petitioner under order VII, Rule 10 C.P.C. for rejection of plaint of plaintiff, as it was earlier filed by the same plaintiff before the court of Ld. Munsif Dhamdaha vide Title Suit No. 03/16 against the same parties and also for the same property, but on account of lack of jurisdiction Ld. Munsif, on the application of present plaintiff returned the plaint. But plaintiff instead of filing same copy of plaint, has filed another plaint against the same party and also for same property by changing the ground of claim, which plaintiff cannot do; And, during pendency of this case further proceeding of Title Suit No. 05/2018, pending before the Ld. Sub-Judge Dhamdaha may kindly be stayed; And, for any other reliefs for which, on the facts and circumstances of this case and also in the eye of law petitioner is found in title.” 3. The learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that the earlier plaint was returned by the learned Munsif for want of jurisdiction. Instead of filing the same plaint in the proper court, the plaintiff filed a fresh plaint against the same party with respect to same property by changing the ground of claim. 4. By the impugned order dated 10.05.2022, the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent before the court of learned Munsif was returned under Order-VII Rule -10 of C.P.C. and a fresh suit was filed before the sub-judge by the plaintiff-respondent, which is in question in Miscellaneous application before this Court. 5. Admittedly, the suit is still at preliminary stage. The petitioner-defendant has already filed a written statement with regard to the plaint filed afresh by the plaintiff- respondent. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the defendant-petitioner merely because the earlier plaint was not filed. 6. 5. Admittedly, the suit is still at preliminary stage. The petitioner-defendant has already filed a written statement with regard to the plaint filed afresh by the plaintiff- respondent. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the defendant-petitioner merely because the earlier plaint was not filed. 6. In the impugned order, learned court below has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanamanthappa and another Vs. Chandrashekharappa and others, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 688, wherein it was held that a suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that certain averments made in the fresh plaint were not part of the original plaint returned by the court. Such a fresh plaint is permissible in the eye of law, subject to limitation pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court fee. 6. Accordingly, the this civil miscellaneous application stands dismissed for want of merit. 7. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner- defendant to raise objections in the written statement with regard to the changes made by the plaintiff-respondent in earlier plaint and the subsequent plaint.