2025:HHC:15788 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 64 of 2025 Date of decision : 26.5.2025. Bharat Dogra ...Petitioner. Versus D.C. Bilaspur & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Hemant K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, order dated 6.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi in CMA No. 1807/24 in Civil Suit No. 48-1/20/2019 has been challenged, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘Code’), has been dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein/ plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the respondents herein /defendants in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi. Pleadings were completed by the parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the same afresh. The ground raised in the said application was that the Court at Mandi did not have jurisdiction in the matter, which in turn, was available with Court at Bilaspur. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi allowed the application vide order dated 9.10.2023 by observing that the suit was bound to fail for the reason of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 3. The plaintiff thereafter filed another application under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code with a prayer to return the plaint to the plaintiff along with documents for presentation before the appropriate Court. In the application, it was averred that the earlier application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for withdrawal of suit for being filed before appropriate Court having jurisdiction in the matter. As per plaintiff, on the question of jurisdiction, the plaint should have been returned instead the suit being dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file afresh. On such assertions, it has been further stated that the earlier order dated 9.10.2023 -3- passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi deserved to be recalled for paving way for an order strictly under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code. 4. Learned Senior Sub Judge, Court No.-1, Mandi has dismissed the application simply on the ground that since the file of the suit has been consigned to records, no order for returning of plaint could be passed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly submitted that they have no objection in case this petition is allowed and the application of the plaintiff filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi under Order 7 Rule 10 and under Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code is ordered to be allowed. 6. Evidently, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Court No.- 1 Mandi has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law. There was a specific averment in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code that the earlier order dated 9.10.2023 had caused hardship to the plaintiff; as he would face objection of limitation. In that background, an averment was further made that the earlier order was required to be recalled. 7. There is no dispute on facts that the purpose for filing the earlier application by the plaintiff was also to seek his -4- remedy before the Court having jurisdiction. After filing of the suit, plaintiff had realized that the Court at Mandi would not have jurisdiction. There also was a specific objection to this effect in the written statement. In these facts, there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to exercise jurisdiction under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code, as the plaint could have been simply returned to the plaintiff for being filed before the appropriate Court in terms of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code. 8. In above backdrop, the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order should have taken into consideration the entire facts of the case. The learned trial Court is vested with inherent jurisdiction to do justice between the parties and noticeably, in absence thereof, the plaintiff is facing serious prejudice. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 6.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi in CMA No. 1807/24 in Civil Suit No. 48-1/20/2019 is set aside. The order dated 9.10.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.-1, Mandi is recalled. The matter is remitted back to learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.-1, Mandi with a direction to take further action in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 or Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code as the case may be, -5- in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Court No.-1, Mandi on 6.6.2025. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 26th May, 2025. (kck)