PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by judgment dated 17.7.1995 passed in First Appeal No. 23/88 the plaintiff -appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal mainly on the ground that when the Court below as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the trial Court had no jurisdiction then instead of proceeding to discuss the evidence on merits the plaint should have been returned for proper presentation in the proper Court as required under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE learned counsel of the appellant while relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Surajmal v. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior 1978 (1) MPWN 66 and Kundan Singh and another v. M.P. State Sahakari Vipanan Sangh Ltd.. Bhopal reported in 1978 (1) MPWN 487 has submitted that when the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit then the only order that could be passed was to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court and no order of dismissal should have been passed. This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel of the respondents. However, it is urged that in case the plaint is to be returned, there should be no observation regarding any extension of the period of limitation.