1. This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 28.06.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar in CFR No.2552 of 2010 whereby the plaint filed by the petitioner herein was returned.

2. Facts, in brief, are that the revision petitioner filed the suit for partition in C.F.R.No.2552 of 2010 before the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar seeking partition and separate possession of his due share out of the suit schedule property basing on a Will dated 27.12.2006 said to have been executed by his paternal grand father by name Kudumula Janga Reddy, who is the half share holder of the suit schedule property. However, the court below took an objection stating that the suit for partition is not maintainable basing on a Will and returned the plaint by its order dated 28.06.2010. The same is questioned in this revision.

3. Since the present issue is in between the Court and the petitioner, the usual notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Srinivas contended that at the stage of numbering of the suit itself, the court below had gone into the merits of the case and decided the issue involved in the suit which amounts to final disposal of the matter. He further contended that by virtue of the said Will dated 27.12.2006, after the death of Janga Reddy the petitioner stepped into the shoes of the said Jangareddy who is a coparcener of respondents 1 to 4 and can seek for partition of the suit schedule properties as per the said Will. He finally contended that though the Court below had simply returned the plaint, but, it amounts to rejection of plaint since the plaint is returned not for presentation of the same before proper court as envisaged under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and hence the order impugned in this revision amounts to an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and becomes a reversible order. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 1) Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Limited, Secunderabad Vs. Sabhavath Kishore (2008 ALD (5) 82), Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta (2007 (TLS) 44721), Thanamki Prasad Vs. Guntamadugu Pullamma and others (2005 (4) ALD 247) and S.C.Bose & Co Vs. G. Srikanth (2006(4) ALT 589).

5. Keeping in view of the specific contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court deems it appropriate to refer to Order VII Rule 10 CPC, 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.

6. In view of the above legal provision, this court, when it looks into the order impugned in this revision, is of the opinion that the said order passed by the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar is contrary to the above said legal provision since the plaint was not returned for want of jurisdiction and for presentation of the same before the competent court having jurisdiction. So on that aspect the order impugned is contrary to the legal provision since the language of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code is not attracted. Hence it should be treated as an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC i.e. rejection of plaint, which reads as under:

Rejection of Plaint: The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action,

b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

7. As seen from the order impugned it is clear that the learne