Facts:

• Defendant Frankfinn Aviation Services charges the applicant with compensation for work. There was Franchise agreement signed between the two. The case is being re-assigned to another judge in Gurgaon.
   
• In return, the plaintiff wants a refund of the claim under section 7, that he does not live in Gurgaon. However, the refund request was denied.
   
• The franchise agreement was signed between the two parties under clause 16 B. However, the appointment of directors is an important part of the agreement.
   
• The appellant then filed a review before the Delhi High Court to hear the De novo claim, to proceed with the case from the beginning and not where it had been left earlier. However, the Delhi High Court held the case.
   
• The applicant then applied for special leave before the bench of 3 judges in the High Court receiving a reference to the decision between the section bench decisions in the case of Joginder Tuli against SL Bhatia and oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited. In contrast to modern construction and Co.

Issues:
The case before the court in the given case was as follows:
If and when the plaint is returned under order 7, rule 10 and 10A of the CPC, either the case will continue as de novo or will continue from the pending period in the court of law.

Problems regarding CPC
Under order 7, rule 10 of the CPC, 1908. If a plaint is returned due to location-related problems, the suit will not resume where it was left, it will continue as de novo data. In the event of a lack of jurisdiction, the case will be filed as a new claim in the appropriate court and the hearing will begin as a new one. Later, rules 10 A and 10 were added to order 7.

Section 24 (5) Transfer of the suit
The CPC Act 1976 also adds section 5 to section 24 under section 24 (5), a case may be referred to a court that has no jurisdiction. The High Court and the Regional Court have jurisdiction to give a court case where there is no jurisdiction in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Judgment
It is desirable that in a dispute between parties where two or more courts may have jurisdiction, it is always open to agreement to grant special authorization in one of the 2 courts. In the present case clause 16b of the agreement is subject to special authorization in a Delhi court.

It was held that the appeal under section 24 of the CPC was completely different from the return of the claim. In a referral, both the appellant and the appellate court have jurisdiction to hear the case. The appellate court has an order to hear or attempt to hear the case and or to continue thereafter the continuation of the search is contrary to the procedure to be mentioned under order 7 Rule 10.

The second application under order 7 rule 10 was to be decided by the respondent, the parties' appeal was finalized. Evidence was led and the case was settled for a final debate.

By exercising its power of choice u/s 136 of the constitution and by administering full and visible justice among the article 142 of the constitution.