M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred the instant Original Side Appeal (as an affected person) as against the Judgment dated 31.01.2014 in C.S.No.857 of 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Civil Suit.

2. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the Learned Single Judge in the main suit in C.S.No.857 of 2009 for the Issue No.1 viz., Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction for deciding and trying the suit?, at para 10 of the Judgment had observed the following:

“10. In the present case, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the sale agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were executed at Chennai. In his evidence, he admitted that the agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 do not state that they were signed at Chennai. Quite contrary to his statement, PW.2 Perumal one of the attestors to the agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 has admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were executed in Pondicherry. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that the earlier suit filed by the Plaintiff in respect of the suit properties, on the basis of Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 was filed in Pondicherry Court. The Defendants neither resided nor carried on business nor did any part of the cause of action arise within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. The Defendants have raised objection even at the first instance as to the place of suing and in spite of such objection, the Plaintiff proceeded with the suit.”

and resultantly, came to the conclusion that the contention of the Respondents/Defendants in the main suit as lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, was all merits and rendered a finding in favour of the Respondents and as against the Appellant/Plaintiff.

3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant refers to Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and contends that as per Order VII Rule 10(1) under the caption 'Return of Plaint', subject to the provisions of rule 10A, 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. Furthermore, as per explanation to Order VII Rule 10(1) C.P.C. a Court of Appeal or Revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the Plaint under the sub-rule. In fact, Order VII Rule 10(2) C.P.C., enjoins 'Procedure on returning Plaint'.

4. To lend support to the contention that the Learned Single Judge, after rendering a finding to and in favour of the Respondents /Defendants for the Issue No.1 to the effect that 'the High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, ought to have passed an order for 'Return of Plaint' and in this regard, an opportunity should have been given to the Appellant/Plaintiff to take the 'Return of Plaint' as specified under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C., but, unfortunately, in the present case, the Learned Single Judge had not passed necessary orders for the 'Return of Plaint' for the reasons aforestated and in this connection, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and others V. Chaman Paswan and others, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 340 at special 342 (Vol. 41, C.N. 82) wherein at paragraph 6, it is, inter alia, observed as follows:

“6.... It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, & that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Co