RATNAKAR Vs. KISHORE VISHNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the arguments are being heard, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the IA No.2 filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was in fact not maintainable since, the plaint could not have been rejected on the ground of jurisdiction but it should have been returned for filing before the proper Court. Therefore, it is submitted that he is filing memo to the effect that the present revision petition be dismissed as withdrawn and he may be given liberty to invoke the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC. The submission and memo filed is taken on record.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relies on the decision in the case of Sneha Srivastava V/s Amita Sinha and Others,(2022) 295 DLT 581. rendered by Delhi High Court, wherein it was observed that suits for partition may be filed at the place where the immovable properties were situated concerning those properties and a similar suit for partition at the place where the movable properties are also situated.

(3.) In view of the filing of the memo by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present revision petition is not pressed, the present revision petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. There is no necessity of giving a liberty to file another IA U/o 7 Rule 10 of CPC as it being the question of law, such point may be raised at any time before the Trial Court.