IMPORTANT POINT
When a plaint is returned for presentation before proper Court under Order VII, Rule 10A of the CPC the plaint alone is returned and as such the Court to which the plaint was later on presented will have to commence the proceedings on such plaint afresh.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the sole surviving defendant in OS No. 94 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, aggrieved by docket order, dated 19.12.2011, passed therein.

2. A few facts, which need to be stated for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as under:

3. The respondent has initially filed OS No. 98 of 2010 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein and his father Gudur Seetharam. In IA No. 239 of 2010 filed by him, an ad interim injunction was granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. After the defendants filed the written statement, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration of title wherein the market value of the suit schedule property was shown as Rs.11,52,000 and the suit was revalued at half of the market value which came to Rs.5,76,000 . Consequently, the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Junior Civil Judge. Therefore, the respondent appeared to have filed an application under Order VII Rule 10A (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), for return of the plaint. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, has passed docket order, dated 20.9.2011, wherein, while referring to the above facts, he has posted the case for counter to 29.9.2011. Even though the parties before this Court have not filed any order passed subsequently by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, from the subsequent events, it appears that the said Court has eventually returned the plaint for being presented in the Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. The respondent has, accordingly, represented the plaint in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla.

4. By docket order, dated 19.11.2011, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, accepted the valuation, directed renumbering of the suit and called for the remaining record from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. Accordingly, the suit was renumbered as OS No.94 of 2011. As regards the injunction application, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, passed a docket order on 19.12.2011 directing renumbering of the IA and posting of the case for enquiry on 5.1.2012. The petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition feeling aggrieved by Order, dated 19.12.2011, of the learned Senior Civil Judge Sircilla, to the extent’ of his calling for remaining record from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, and continuing the injunction application from the stage at which it was returned by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla. At the hearing, Mr. P. V. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that when once the plaint is returned for presentation in proper court, the proceedings in the Court, which returned the plaint, end and the order, if any, passed by the Court returning the plaint will not ensure to the benefit of the plaintiff. He has further submitted that as representation of the plaint in the proper Court constitutes filing of a fresh suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, committed a serious jurisdictional error in treating the injunction application as continuation of the proceedings from the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla, and calling for remaining record from the said Court. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Musunuru Kasi Annapurnamma v. Musunuru Seshaiah and Anr., (1983) APLJ 311 and Mohd Mustafa Shareef v. Masoom Ali Mohalla Committee, 2011(4) ALD 614 Mr. P. Giri Krishna, learned Counsel for the respondent, while broadly accepting the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that when the suit for permanent injunction was filed, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla