This Revision is directed against the orders dated 08-04-2004 in O.S.No.10 of 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal whereby, the suit was returned holding that the said Court has no jurisdiction and the same shall be presented before the appropriate Court.

2. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner herein instituted the said suit for recovery of money of Rs.3,51 ,333/on the foot of a promissory note. On notice, the respondents put in their appearance, engaged an Advocate and a detailed written statement was also filed. On the basis of the pleadings, the Court below settled the issues. However, during the course of trial, P.W.1 filed his chief examination affidavit wherein he has stated that the entire transaction took place at Karnataka only. On the strength of the said pleading, an additional issue was also framed regarding the territorial jurisdiction. While answering the said issue, in affirmative, the trial Court returned the plaint to the petitioner herein directing him to approach appropriate Court and present the same. As stated supra, the said order is under challenge by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that the petitioner is a resident of Raichur in Karnataka and the transaction also had taken place at Raichur. But the respondent defendant is resident of Gadwal in Mahaboobnagar District and hence, he approached the Court at Gadwal and filed the present suit for recovery of money on the foot of the promissory note. In this context, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 20 of C.P.C. and submitted that a suit can maintain either in the Courts at Gadwal or in the Courts at Raichur. As the respondent is residing at Gadwal, he has chosen the Court at Gadwal and the Court below ought not to have returned the plaint stating that the said Court has no jurisdiction. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has not followed the procedure provided for under Order VII Rule 10A of C.P.C. i.e., issuance of notice to the petitioner before returning the plaint.

5. Per contra, Mr.Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the said submission, stating that this Revision itself is not maintainable for the reason that the order passed by the Trial Court i.e., return of the plaint is appelable under Order XLIII of CPC and hence, he ought not to have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to him, when once an issue is settled and both the parties were permitted to advance their arguments, the question of following the procedure provided for under Order VII Rule 10-A has no application and as the Court is thoroughly satisfied that the said Court has no jurisdiction, it only returned the plaint.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said order was passed by the court below returning the plaint on 08-04-2004 whereas the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 18.07.2008 i.e. after lapse of about four years and as such this revision is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

7. In the light of the said controversy, this Court summoned the records from the trial Court.

8. Part I of C.P.C. deals with suits in general and Sections 15 to 20 deals with the places where the suit has to be instituted. According to Section 15 C.P.C, every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Section 16 C.P.C. deals with the suits to be instituted where the said matter is situated. Section 17 C.P.C. deals with the suits for immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of differen