The court must follow procedural requirements under CPC when returning plaints, including fixing appearance dates.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI th ON THE 6 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 3811 of 2025 RAJESH DUBEY Versus SMT. LAXMI BAI (DEAD) UMARAO SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri G.P. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 11/7/2025 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhopal in RCS NO. 1178A/2022 whereby the petitioner is not aggrieved by the entire order but he is only seeking rectification of the order to the extent that a fixed date may be given to both the parties to appear before the Competent Court, in the interest of justice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit. There was a sale agreement executed between them on 01/07/2013 in respect of Khasra Nos.33-41/1, 33-41/2 area 18.66 acre and Khasra No.1441/948 and Khasra No.949 area 9.01 acre Signature Not Verified total Area 27.67 acre, out of which, 6.67 acres of land situated at Subhash Nagar, Govindpura, Bhopal. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC raising the ground that the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case as the trial Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction because the value of suit property is more than Rs. 5 Lakh rupees. Considering the same, the Trial Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 returned the plaint by allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC.

3. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner prior to decision on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, on 16.06.2025 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10-A of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC. It is contended by the counsel that the said application is pending and not decided by the trial Court and no fixed date has been given for appearance of the parties on which, the plaint supposed to be presented. By way of this petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court has not followed the procedure as laid down under Order 7 Rule 10-A of CPC.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the order, which does not require any interference.

5. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties Signature Not Verified and perused the record.

6. To deal with the rival submissions, it is first apposite to appreciate the Order 7 Rule 10(A) of CPC, which provides as under:-

10A. Power of Court to fix a date of appearance in the Court where plaint is to be filed after its return.— (1) Where, in any suit, after the defendant has appeared, the Court is of opinion that the plaint should be returned, it shall, before doing so, intimate its decision to the plaintiff.

(2) Where an intimation is given to the plaintiff under sub-rule (1), the plaintiff may make an application to the Court—

(a) specifying the Court in which he proposes to present the plaint after its return, (b) praying that the Court may fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the said Court, and (c) requesting that the notice of the date so fixed may be given to him and to the defendant.

(3) Where an application is made by the plaintiff under sub-rule (2), the Court shall, Signature Not Verified before returning the plaint and notwithstanding that the order for return of plaint was made by it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit,—

(a) fix a date for the appearance of the parties in the Court in which the plaint is proposed to be presented, and (b) give to the plaintiff and to the defendant notice of such date for appearance.

(4) Where the notice of the date for appearance is given under sub-rule (3),— (a) it shall not be necessary for the Court in which the pl