Once an order for return of the plaint has been passed, the court is functus officio in all matters except for making an endorsement, and the court has no power to order an amendment of the plaint after directing its return for presentation to the proper court.

1. The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed in 1969. Pending suit some of the plaint schedule properties were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for some public purpose. Thereafter the plaint was amended so as to include a prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs' right to a share in the compensation amount. Some of the defendants had filed a written statement to the original plaint in which one of the contentions was that proper court-fee has not been paid for the plaint. But this contention was not pressed for consideration either before or after the amendment of the plaint. Both parties let in evidence on the issues raised on the pleadings and the case was posted for final hearing. One. of the issues raised in the case was whether the court-fee paid is not sufficient. After the final hearing the learned Munsiff entered a finding on this issue alone by holding that the valuation for the purpose of court-fee and for the purpose of jurisdiction is not correct and that the plaint if properly valued for purpose of jurisdiction will exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. Consequently the lower court held that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction over the subject matter. He did not enter a finding as regards the exact court-fee payable on "the valuation. Time to re-present the plaint in the proper court was fixed as one month. Before the expiry of this period of one month the plaintiffs filed an application to amend the plaint by withdrawing the declared relief in respect of the compensation amount awarded for some of the plaint properties acquired pending suit. This was rejected by the learned Munsiff stating that after the earlier order directing return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction over the subject matter no plaint is there to amend. This is objected to in this revision petition.

2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the view of the lower court that there is no plaint before that Court to amend after the order for return of the plaint to the proper court having jurisdiction, is not correct. In support of his contention he referred to Order VII R.10(2), C.P.C. which is in the following terms :

10. Return of plaint

[1] x x x

[2] On returning a plaint the judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it."

and contended that since such an endorsement has not been made in the plaint by the Munsiff at the time when or before the amendment application was filed the learned Munsiff is still in seisin of the plaint. He also referred to Explanation I to S.14 of the Limitation Act and the decision in Brij Mohandas v, Narsinghdas (AIR. 1971 M. P. 243) where it has been held that the civil proceeding can be deemed to have ended only by the endorsement made as per Order VII R.10 (2) CPC. No doubt R.10 (2) of Order VII provides that the judge must endorse on the plaint the date of its presentation and return and the brief statement of the reasons for the return of it and this is a judicial act to be performed by the Court. But the absence of such an endorsement is a mere irregularity and it cannot be said that the court is is seisin of the plaint, after the order for return, to enable it to make any amendment in the plaint. Even if the suit is to be deemed pending until such an endorsement, that is only for the purpose of calculating the period of exclusion under S.14 of the Limitation Act. Once the plaint has been ordered to be returned, there is nothing remaining to be done by the court except to make an endorsement and the omission in making such an endorsement is only irregular and does not make the order for return ineffective or incomplete. An order for return is final so far as that court is concerned and such an order is also appealab