IMPORTANT POINT
Return of plaint – When jurisdiction is clearly vested with Family Court, any dispute relating to property owned by spouses jointly, or by any of them individually, will have to be necessarily filed before Family Court.

ORDER

The wife, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.4 of 2024 in O.S No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur has come up by way of this revision petition.

2. The petitioner wife had taken out an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking return of the plaint filed by the husband before the competent Family Court. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the wife has filed the instant revision petition.

3. I have heard Ms. S.P. Arthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner; Mr. M.Rajeswaran, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr. N. Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S.P. Arthi would invite my attention to Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and contend that any dispute relating to property held by the husband and wife, jointly or individually can only be instituted before the Family Court and jurisdiction of the other Courts is also expressly stated under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act.

5. The learned counsel, pointing out to the reliefs sought for in the suit, would contend that the District Court cannot assume jurisdiction and try the suit. She would therefore pray for the revision being allowed and the plaint to be returned to the husband for presenting the same before the competent Family Court.

6. Per contra Mr. M. Rajeswaran, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would first and foremost challenge the maintainability of the revision.

7. The learned counsel would contend that under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal is provided as against an order passed under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and therefore, he contended that the present revision petition cannot be entertained. Even on the merits, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would state that it is not a lis purely between the husband and the wife, which will alone have to go to the Family Court and referring to the array of parties and pointing out that the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, is the 2nd defendant in the said suit, he would contend that the suit has to be tried only before the competent Civil Court and the request for return of the plaint is wholly misconceived. He would also state that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.Raja v. M.Sridevi @ Kalpana in C.R.P.No.926 of 2016, dated 19.4.2025. The learned counsel would therefore prays for dismissal of the civil revision.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9. Firstly, dealing with the maintainability of the revision petition, it is the contention of the counsel for the 1st respondent, Mr.Rajeswaran that, the order under challenge is appealable under the provisions of Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence relying on the ratio laid down by this Court in Meenakshi Sundaram vs Umar John and five others reported in CRP (MD) No.447 of 2023, dated 22.2.2023, he contends that the order is appealable. I am unable to countenance the said submission of the learned counsel for the simple reason that under the provisions of Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only when an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed, an appeal is provided. Order 43 CPC does not provide for an appeal as against the dismissal or rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in the decision on which reliance is placed viz., in the case of Meenakshi Sundaram referred herein above, it was a case where the revision was filed against an order allowing an application for return of the plaint. Therefore, under such circumstances, this Court held that the order was appealable. In view of the above, I am unable to countenance the submissions of the lea