K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The question of law involved in these Revisions is whether a suit filed before the Civil Court for realisation of money by SBI Home Finance Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act and which is not a bank or financial institution within the purview of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, would cease to be maintainable before the Civil Court when the assets and liabilities of the plaintiff Company were transferred after the institution of the suit by registered assignment deed to the State Bank of India, which is a bank coming within the purview of the said Act? Or, whether it is necessary for the Civil Court to return the plaint holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit? All these Revisions arise out of similar orders passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam rejecting the applications filed by the State Bank of India to return the plaint in five different suits. Since the questions involved in all the cases are the same, the Revisions are being disposed of by this common order. The suits were filed by the SBI Home Finance Ltd., which is a Company registered under the Companies Act. SBI Home Finance Ltd. is not a bank or financial institution within the meaning of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the "Recovery of Debts Act"). The suits were filed for realisation of amounts exceeding Rupees Ten lakhs in each case, after the commencement of the Recovery of Debts Act. It is admitted by all parties that the suits filed by SBI Home Finance Ltd. were maintainable before the Civil Court.

2. The assets and liabilities of SBI Home Finance Ltd. were transferred to the State Bank of India, subsequent to the institution of the suits. The State Bank of India filed applications in the suits to substitute it as the plaintiff. The Court below allowed the applications in part and permitted the State Bank of India to continue to prosecute the suits, the Bank being an assignee who came on record under Rule 10 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure. While allowing the applications, the Court below held in the orders passed in November, 2004 that even though the State Bank of India was permitted to prosecute the suits along with the original plaintiff on record, the Civil Court will not lose its jurisdiction and that the Debt Recovery Tribunal would have no jurisdiction.

3. The applications from which the Revisions arose were filed praying to return the plaint for presentation before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court below held that in view of the orders passed by it on an earlier occasion permitting the State Bank of India to continue to prosecute the suits, it was not necessary to return the plaint. The applications for return of the plaint were accordingly dismissed. While dismissing the applications, the Court below also held that return of plaint can only be done if the Court finds that it has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction.

4. I shall first deal with the question whether return of plaint could be only on the ground of lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. The Rule does not restrict the return of plaint only to a case of lack of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. No distinction is made under Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure between jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. On a plain reading of Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would cover even cases where the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. There is nothing in Rule 10 to indicate that in a case where the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject-matter, a return of the plaint cann