The importance of adhering to procedural requirements and following the prescribed rules before rejecting applications or returning plaints based on lack of jurisdiction.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i) A writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 on I.A.No. I passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudhol in O.S.No.27/2016.

ii) Any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit be granted in the interest of justice.

2. The suit in O.S.No.27/2016 has been filed by the petitioner herein who is the plaintiff therein against the respondents herein who are the defendants therein and certain other official parties seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Declaring that, the plaintiff is also entitle 50% share in all legal benefit of Family Pension and (Army Group Insurance Fund) AGI and other Legal Benefit arising out of her son's Death Shri. Anand Hanamant Pujer, (Army No.6494754K Nk chef), who died on 06 Jun 2014. And by successors to succeed and inherit the estate left by his son along with Defendant No.1.

b) A decree of mandatory injunction may kindly be issued to the Defendant No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 directing them to pay to plaintiff 50% share amount, as legal heir for Family pension, AGI fund, and other legal Benefits as per legal heirs entitle and act accordingly.

c) Any other relief/s to which the Plaintiffs are found entitled to;

d) Full costs of this suit be awarded;

e) Permission to amend the plaint as and when circumstances warrant may kindly be granted;

3. In the said suit the written statement came to be filed wherein it is contended that the said Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the matter.

4. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in I.A.No. I filed in the said suit seeking injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from releasing any amount to defendant No.1 from and out of the account maintained by defendants No.2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from disbursing any amount from and out of the dues available out of the account of one Anand who is the son of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant No.1.

5. The Trial Court vide its order dated 28.11.2016 rejected I.A.No. I on the ground that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction. It is aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Sri. S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Trial Court could not have rejected I.A.No. I and thereby, virtually dismissed the suit without following the requirements of Rule 10 of Order VII of the CPC as also of Rule 10A of Order VII of the CPC. The impugned order having rejected I.A.No.I, no further date has been passed in the matter amounting to dismissal of the suit itself which should not have been done only on the basis of the said Court not having pecuniary jurisdiction. At the most, the plaint could have been returned on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and to be presented before the Court of proper jurisdiction.

7. Per contra, Sri. Gurudev Gachchinmath, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the order passed by the Trial court is proper and correct and there is interference required of this Court.

8. Sri. M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel for respondents No.3, 5 and 6 submits that they are formal official parties and any order passed by this Court would be followed by them.

9. Heard Sri. S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Gurudev Gachchinmath, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel for respondents No.3, 5 and 6. Perused papers.

10. It is the peculiar case where an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been rejected on the ground that the Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction. While doing so, no further date has been passed. It is deemed that the suit itself has been dismissed.

11. Rule 10 of Order VII of the CPC is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

'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 institute