AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath
The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit to declare that it is entitled to hold and enjoy the suit schedule property in terms of the Will. During the
pendency of the suit, the 3rd defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking return of the plaint for presentation
before the proper jurisdictional Court. By the impugned order, the Trial Court posted the said I.A. for enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the present
petition has been filed by the plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no necessity to hold an enquiry on this I.A. That
the premise on which the application has been ordered for an enquiry is unsustainable. So far as the Court fee is concerned, what has been paid by
the plaintiff is proper. Hence, no enquiry is required. He further contends that he has filed an application for injunction and the said application
could have been considered on merits notwithstanding the consideration of I.A.III.
The learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent defending the impugned order contends that there is no error committed by the Trial
Court which calls for interference.
On hearing learned Counsels and examining the impugned order, I do not find any error that calls for interference. What the Trial Court has
done is posted I.A.III for enquiry. It would necessarily have to determine its jurisdiction before proceeding with the matter. Until and unless the
jurisdiction of the Court is determined, the consideration of the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff would not arise for consideration
Under these circumstances, the impugned order holding an enquiry on I.A.III is just and reasonable. I do not find any error committed by the Trial
Court that calls for interference. Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.