JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated

29.07.2017 passed in O.S.No.337/2008 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, wherein the Trial Court, invoking Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C. ordered to return the counter claim to the defendants for presentation before the proper Court. Earlier, vide order dated 04.07.2013, the Trial Court had also passed an order that plaint has been returned for presentation before the Civil Judge, Nelamangala which has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that suit schedule properties are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Nelamangala Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the properties which is situated at Nelamangala Taluk.

4. The defendants have also appeared and filed the written statement and made counter claim for Rs.54,26,920.79/- and the same exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The Trial Court, considering the counter claim, comes to the conclusion that the same exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the counter claim. Hence, the claim has to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff in this appeal would vehemently contend that the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and the quantum of counter claim made is also more than the pecuniary jurisdiction is not in dispute. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Order 8, Rule 6 (A) of C.P.C., wherein there is a proviso that such counter claim would not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. The counsel would submit that counter claim should not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court when the counter claim is made in a suit. It also submitted that, when the claim is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction, the Trial Court ought not to have invoked Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C. ordering for return of the plaint and ought to have rejected the very counter claim itself.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-

defendants would submit that, suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the properties which situate at Nelamangala and not within the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru Rural District. The counsel also would submit that the Trial Court ordered to return the plaint not only on one ground that the Court is not having jurisdiction for entertaining the suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the properties which is situated within the jurisdiction of Nelamangala Court and the other ground is, when the counter claim is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the particular Court, the Trial Court has no any other option but to return the plaint to present the same before the Court, which is having competent jurisdiction to decide the issue between the parties. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in invoking Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C., to return the plaint to present the same before the Court which is having jurisdiction to try the issue involved between the parties. The learned counsel also would submit that when the counter claim is made, the same has to be treated as claim and when the Court is not having the jurisdiction to consider that claim rightly ordered to return the plaint filed under Order 7, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Hence, it does not require any interference.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in support of her arguments, she relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Syed Imtiyaz v. Milka Vatsala reported in ILR 2007 KAR 5010, and brought to the notice of this Court that the factual aspects of the case, which has been referred in paragraph No.5, wherein, the defendant made the cla