RIMI ALBI Vs. KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under O. XLIII, R. 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short 'C.P.C.' is against an order returning a plaint. Heard.

(2.) The grounds recognised for returning of plaint in terms of O. VII R. 10 of CPC are pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction. The clear terms thereof provides only for the plaint being returned to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted. A suit of civil nature under S. 9 of C.P.C., can be instituted only in a civil court. The words 'courts', 'suits', and 'plaint' in O. VII R. 10 of C.P.C. do not provide any room to devise a mechanism to return of plaint for its presentation before any other Forum, after holding that the suit is barred by any provision of law. Therefore, the impugned order returning the plaint is not sustainable. Learned counsel for appellants is also justified in criticising the impugned order, as one by which the court below has essentially decided on an issue as to the maintainability of the suit. Such a question could have been gone into only in the suit after registering the plaint. If grounds are made for rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds referable to O. VII, R. 11 C.P.C., that could follow. That is a different matter. If none of those grounds exists, the court has to decide the suit on its merits, even on a ground of jurisdiction or maintainability. Even such an issue can be considered as a preliminary issue, only if it is a pure question of law and not one which is a mixed question of law and fact.