The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of adhering to the prescribed procedure for returning the plaint as per Order VII Rules 10 and 10A of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.N. Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Guwahati rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit.

2. A brief narration of the facts may be necessary.

3. A suit was filed by respondent No. 1 as plaintiff, wherein the petitioner was the defendant, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Guwahati for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the defendant (petitioner) and for permanent injunction. The suit was registered as Title Suit No. 182/2003. Defendant entered appearance on receipt of notice and filed written statement. Stand was taken that the suit land was purchased by the defendant by a sale deed.

4. Plaintiff i.e. respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application for amendment of the plaint. It was contended that after filing of written statement by the defendant, plaintiff came to know that the proforma defendant had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant (petitioner). The said sale deed was, therefore, also required to be challenged. The application for amendment was objected to by the defendant on the ground that it would lead to enhancement of the valuation of the suit and the Court would not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Guwahati passed an order dated 31.03.2004 returning the plaint to the plaintiff to be filed before the proper Court. It was held that a perusal of the sale deed indicated that the land had been valued at Rs. 75,000/- and the plaintiffs had sought for cancellation of the sale deed. In such a case, the plaintiff would have to pay ad valoram Court fee of Rs. 75,000/- which would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

5. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 thereof for review of the order dated 31.03.2004 stating that the order for return of plaint was erroneous on the face of the record. On an application for amendment, Court had returned the plaint. Court had the jurisdiction either to allow the petition for amendment of the plaint or to reject the same, but not to return the plaint. Objection was filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid application for review. In paragraph 4 of the objection, petitioner stated that the Court was correct in passing the order returning the plaint with a direction to file the same in proper Court.

6. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Guwahati thereafter passed an order dated 12.07.2004 rejecting the said petition by holding that the order sought to be reviewed was an appealable order.

7. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed the plaint in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Guwahati with enhanced suit value on the same subject matter. The suit was registered as Title Suit No. 353/2004.

8. Petitioner submitted an application under Section 3 of the Limitation Act for dismissal of the suit which was registered as Misc. Case No. 223/2005 and objection was filed by the plaintiff to the said petition.

9. Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 2, Guwahati thereafter passed an order dated 12.12.2005 rejecting the said petition.

10. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the legality and validity of the said order.

11. Before proceeding further, it may also be relevant to note that after rejection of the review petition, the plaintiff again filed a petition in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Guwahati for passing necessary order as per provision of Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 passed an order dated 04.08.2004 allowing the said petition by directing the parties to appear before the Court of