Norman Macleod, Kt.,C.J.
1. We do not agree with the order of January 17, 1925, directing the suit to be struck off the file. The mistake which came in the plaintiff's way was due to the default of the Erandol Judge, who ought to have in the first instance returned the plaint with regard to the whole of the causes of action therein. Instead of doing that, he referred the plaintiff to the Dhulia Court in regard to a portion of the claim, thinking at that time that he could deal with the remainder. Thereafter, he changed his mind and found that he could not deal with the remainder of the claim. There is no reason why on that account the plaintiff should be debarred from prosecuting his claim in the Dhulia Court, either on the original plaint, or on the certified copy which was continued to be used in the Erandol Court, till finally the Erandol Court declined to deal with any part of the suit.
2. We think the original procedure adopted by the Erandol Judge was wrong. If he decided that he could deal with only one of the causes of action in the plaint, then he should have retained the plaint himself, and struck out from the plaint that part of it which he held was beyond his jurisdiction, and then the plaintiff could file another suit in the Dhulia Court. We do not think it is provided for anywhere in the Civil Procedure Code that the same suit could be going on in two different Courts on the same plaint.
3. Rule will be made absolute and the suit will be heard on the merits. Costs of this rule will abide the result.