Order VII, Rule 10 and Rule 11 of the CPC have distinct fields of operation and should not be inter-mixed. Rule 10 applies to jurisdictional defects, while Rule 11 applies to defects in the plaint.

( 1 ) THE instant First Appeal from Order is directed against an order dated 9-1-1991 passed by the trial court directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the appropriate court.

( 2 ) IT will perhaps be best, in view of the question at issue, to relate what it is that the dispute was all about. A suit purporting to be one under S. 92 of the C. P. C. was instituted in the court of Civil Judge and without first obtaining necessary permission of the Advocate General or leave of the Court. Later, realising that such a suit can only be filed in the court of the District Judge, an application was moved on 17-2-1990 praying for return of the plaint for being presented in the proper Court as it had been filed in the wrong court. The Court allowed the application despite appellants objection against return of the plaint on the plea that the plaint deserved to be rejected and, therefore, cannot be ordered to be returned for presentation to another Court. Alternative submission also was that even if Order VII, Rule 10 be applicable, the plaint still should be rejected as the plaint was defective and both the Rules 10 and 11 of Order VII should be applied together. In the light of the above Sri K. M. Sinha for appellants has vehemently urged that the course adopted by the trial court in directing the return of plaint for being presented in an appropriate court was erroneous and in the circumstances of the case the court ought to have rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 rather than proceed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code.

( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length we are of the opinion that the submission of the appellants has no merit. Before we proceed to discuss the merits of the present case it will be relevant to have before us relevant provisions which are subject of discussion here. The relevant portion of Rule 10 is as under :-"10. Return of Plaint. (1 ). . . . . . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . " similarly the relevant portion of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code is in the following terms :"11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action: (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so : (c) Whether the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) Whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 4 ) A plain reading of the two provisions will therefore indicate that they apply in different circumstances. Rule 10 can be applied at any stage of the suit but Rule 11 shall apply only at a stage when the Court has occasion to consider the contents of the plaint. Rule 10 pre-supposes the existence of another Court which is competent to entertain the suit after the plaint is returned, but this is not an essential condition for passing an order under Rule 11.

( 5 ) THE argument which was pressed with some vehemence by Sri Sinha was that Rules 10 and 11 should have been applied together because in this case apart from the difficulty of jurisdiction the plaint also suffered from another serious legal flaw as the same had been filed without obtaining necessary sanction either from the Advocate General or from the court. He, therefore, urged that putting both the provisions together the plaint had to be rejected.

( 6 ) THAT a suit contemplated by Section 92, C. P. C. cannot be filed without obtaining sanction of the Advocate General is not disputed. There is no dispute e