When a plaint is returned under Order VII R.10, C.P.C., the suit comes to an end, and re-filing the plaint before the same court is the institution of a fresh suit. The plaintiff must comply with all formalities, including the payment of fresh court-fee.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this case relates to the representation of a plaint returned by a court to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted, to the very same court which returned the plaint. After making necessary amendments in the plaint to attract the territorial jurisdiction of the court which returned the plaint, the same plaint was represented to the court which returned the plaint by the plaintiff without paying fresh court-fee. The court rejected the plaint saying: "Since there is already a finding that this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit it will not be open to the plaintiff to re-present the plaint in the same court. There is no change of circumstance as far as the territorial jurisdiction of the court is concerned."

In this Civil Revision Petition the plaintiff challenges the above order of the court below rejecting his plaint.

2. Shri T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the court below went wrong in rejecting the plaint on the ground that there is already a finding regarding the question of jurisdiction in the order returning the plaint. According to the learned counsel, that 6nding was on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint as it stood then and in view of the fact that the plaint has now been amended before re-presentation by incorporating averments necessary to attract the court's jurisdiction, the court could not reject the plaint simply saying that the question of jurisdiction was already decided. Learned counsel further contends that it is open for the plaintiff to amend a plaint returned by the court and re-present the same to the very same court and the court can reject the same only if the court has not either the territorial jurisdiction or the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case as put forth in the re-presented plaint Learned counsel refers to Order VII R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contends that the return of the plaint was for representation to the proper court and the plaint was re-presented to the very same court because after the changes made in the plaint that court gets jurisdiction in the matter. In such a case, the finding in the order returning the plaint cannot at all stand in the way of the court in accepting the plaint and the court will have to accept the same if the re-presented plaint reveals a cause of action which the court has jurisdiction to try. Learned counsel refers to Order VI R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contends that only when a suit is on the file the procedure prescribed by the Code need be complied with for making changes in a plaint. In this connection, reference is made to Debi Sahai v. Ganga Sahai (AIR. 1954 Allahabad 749) wherein it is said:

"Under the law a plaintiff is not prevented from amending the plaint which had been returned to him and to represent it to the Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain the amended plaint No question of an abuse of the process of Court is involved in the case."

In the above case a plaint which was returned for presentation to the proper court was amended by the plaintiffs themselves and represented to the very same court. It is not mentioned in the judgment whether the plaintiffs paid fresh court-fee or not Reference is then made to Parvathi Ammal v. Meenakshi Ammal

(AIR. 1951 Madras 84 ) wherein it is said:

"A suit comes to an end when the plaint is returned under 0.7 R,10 for presentation to proper court. By representing the old plaint, with new claims and reliefs added, suo mote so as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the court that returned the plaint, the plaintiff cannot claim that it is a continuation of the old suit. For in substance it is a fresh plaint, though the old plaint had been amended in many respects and presented to the same court which had previously returned the plaint as unamended Hence the plaintiff desiring to sue 'in forma pauperis" had to comply wi