Courts must correctly interpret pecuniary jurisdiction and follow the appropriate procedure when a suit is found to be outside the court's jurisdiction.

This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the District Munsif, Mettur, in I.A.No.1836 of 1983. The petition was taken out by the 1st respondent herein to dismiss the suit as it was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif. After hearing the parties, the District Munsif passed an order on 26. 1984 holding that the suit should be dismissed and allowed the petition. Actually, the suit was not dismissed. But the learned District Munsif returned the plaint to the plaintiffs on the next day for presentation before the proper court.

2. It is now stated that the plaint was presented in the Sub Court, Sankari and it is ready for trial

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to return the plaint on the basis of the evidence recorded in the trial. I do not agree with the petitioners. The District Munsif has found that P.W.1 has admitted the value of the suit claim to be worth Rs.82,300. Hence, the District Munsif is right in taking the view that the suit was outside his pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the District Munsif was not right in holding that the suit should be dismissed. The District Munsif could only return the plaint and could not have dismissed the suit if the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

4. Though the District Munsif has used a wrong expression in the judgment, it is seen that actually the suit was not dismissed and the plaint was returned. Hence, justice has been done in this case and the petitioners could not make a grievance of the order of the Court. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.