( 1 ) THE PETITIONERS HEREIN WERE THE DEFENDANTS IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 10 OF 1995 IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND C. J. M. AT DHARWAD AND THE RESPONDENTS WERE THE PLAINTIFFS THEREIN.

( 2 ) THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS REVISION ARE AS UNDER: INITIALLY, THE PLAINTIFFS HAD FILED THEIR SUIT AGAINST PETITIONERS in THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF AT NAVALGUND WHICH WAS REGISTERED in ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 158 OF 1994 ON ITS FILE. THAT SUIT WAS FILED for THE RELIEFS OF DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST defendants. A PRELIMINARY ISSUE HAD ARISEN FROM THE RESPECTIVE pleadings OF THE PARTIES IN REGARD TO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF THE munsiff COURT AT NAVALGUND TO TRY THE SAID SUIT. THAT ISSUE WAS tried BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF AND HIS FINDING THEREON WAS recorded BY HIS ORDER DATED 23-1-1995 HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT matter OF THE SUIT EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF ITS PECUNIARY jurisdiction. ACCORDINGLY, HE ORDERED RETURN OF THE PLAINT TO THE petitioner UNDER ORDER 7, RULE 10, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR presentation IN PROPER COURT VIZ. COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AT dharwad.

( 3 ) ON THE SAID ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT AT NAVALGUND, THE PLAINT WAS TAKEN OUT BY THE PLAINTIFF FROM THAT COURT AND WAS re-PRESENTED IN THE SAID PROPER COURT I. E. , COURT OF THE CIVIL judge AT DHARWAD AND THE SAME CAME TO BE REGISTERED IN original SUIT NO. 10 OF 1995 ON ITS FILE. THE petitioners/defendants ENTERED APPEARANCE IN THE SAID ORIGINAL suit NO. 10 OF 1995 IN THE COURT BELOW. THEREAFTER, LA. VI WAS filed BY THEM RAISING AN OBJECTION THAT THE PLAINT OF respondents/plaintiffs MAY BE REJECTED SINCE IT WAS ALTERED considerably FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAINT WHICH WAS EARLIER FILED BY them IN THE SAID ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 158 OF 1994 IN THE COURT OF the MUNSIFF AT NAVALGUND. THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE AFTER hearing BOTH SIDES PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED MARCH 16, 1996 REJECTING THE PETITIONERS' LA. VI HOLDING THAT IT WAS entirely IN THE DISCRETION OF THE PLAINTIFFS EITHER TO ALTER OR NOT to ALTER THEIR PLAINT BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE SAME IN PROPER court, SUBJECT TO PROPER VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND PAYMENT OF the REQUISITE COURT FEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW, THE LEARNED civil JUDGE RELIED ON A DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN nanikutty AMMA DEVAKI AMMA AND OTHERS V KRISHNAN kochunarayanan NAIR AND OTHERS,so HOLDING THE REJECTED petitioners' SAID I. A. IN THIS REVISION THE DEFENDANTS HAVE challenged THE SAID TRIAL COURT's ORDER.

( 4 ) SRI MOHAN SHANTHANAGOUDAR, LEARNED COUNSEL OR PETITIONERS, ASSAILED THE VALIDITY OF THE TRAIL COURT SUBMITTING that HE WAS BOUND TO ALLOW PETITIONERS' I. A. VI AND REJECT THE respondents' ALTERED PLAINT FILED BEFORE IT, SINCE THE LATTER WERE not ENTITLED TO BRING ABOUT ANY CHANGE IN THEIR PLAINT BEFORE IT was PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW.

( 5 ) FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CANVASSED BY BOTH SIDES, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE INTENT AND PURPORT of ORDER 7, RULE 10, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. THIS MATERIAL provision READS:"rule 10. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 10-A A plaint SHALL AT ANY STAGE OF THE SUIT BE RETURNED TO BE PRESENTED to THE COURT IN WHICH THE SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN instituted. (2) ON RETURNING THE PLAINT THE JUDGE SHALL ENDORSE THEREON the DATE OF ITS PRESENTATION AND RETURN, THE SAME TO THE party PRESENTING IT AND A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR returning IT".

( 6 ) THE RELATED RULE 10-A OF ORDER 7, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PROVIDES FOR THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE PLAINTIFFS ON A direction OF THE COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RETURN THE PLAINT under ORDER 7, RULE 10, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR ITS presentation TO THE PROPER COURT. THIS PROVISION GIVES TWO options TO THE PLAINTIFF IN SUCH A SITUATION. FIRST OPTION IS THAT he CAN TAKE BACK THE PLAINT FROM THE COURT HAVING NO jurisdiction TO ENTERTAIN THE SAME TO PRESENT IT IN A PROPER COURT; the NEXT OPTION LEFT OPEN TO HIM IS THAT, WITHOUT TAKING BACK THE plaint FROM THE FORMER COURT, HE MAY CHOOSE TO CHALLE