Allowed

Jagdish Chander and Anr. v. Lalit Tara @ Prince and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jan 2012CR/1138/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order directing plaint return due to alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that under Section 17 CPC, a court with jurisdiction over part of the suit property can try the entire suit regarding multiple properties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing return of plaint was set aside and the application for return was dismissed.

Jagdish Chander and Anr. Vs Lalit Tara @ Prince… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1138 of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1138 of 2010 Date of decision : January 10, 2012

¶5

Jagdish Chander Tara and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

Lalit Tara @ Prince and others

¶9

....Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma,Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 1(a) None for the remaining respondents

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 6.11.2009, Annexure P/7 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala Cantt. thereby allowing application Annexure P/5 filed by defendants no. 1 to 3 and 1A under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for return of plaint.

¶15

Plaintiffs have filed suit for partition of suit properties situated at three places i.e. Baldev Nagar, Ambala City (Haryana), village Jarout,

¶16

Civil Revision No. 1138 of 2010

¶17

-2-

¶18

Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali (Punjab) and in Rurki (Uttrakhand) and also for rendition of accounts of Star Pharmaceuticals situated in village Jarout. Various other reliefs have also been claimed.

¶19

Defendants no. 1 to 3 and 1A in their application Annexure P/5 alleged that the main relief claimed in the suit is regarding property of District Mohali whereas properties of Ambala City and Rurki have been included to only confer jurisdiction on the court at Ambala. It was alleged that properties situated at Ambala are exclusively owned by defendants no. 1 and 2 as admitted by the plaintiffs in the plaint. It was, thus, alleged that civil court at Ambala has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

¶20

The application was resisted by the plaintiffs. According to the claim of the plaintiffs, property at Ambala City was purchased by plaintiff no. 1 in the name of his sons defendants no. 1 and 2 and property at village Jarout was purchased by plaintiff no. 1 in the name of his son plaintiff no. 2 and defendants no. 1 and 2. It was also alleged that defendant no. 1A who is wife of defendant no. 1 in connivance with him withdrew and utilized the funds of the Pharmaceutical Industry from Mohali and invested the same to purchase two properties in Uttrakhand. It was, thus, alleged that all the properties including the property at Ambala being subject matter of the suit, court at Ambala has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

¶21

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/7 directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to delete the relief regarding properties lying outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Ambala i.e. relating to properties situated in District Mohali and in Rurki, failing which the court

¶22

Civil Revision No. 1138 of 2010

¶23

-3-

¶24

would strike off that part of the plaint. The trial court also ordered that plaint of plaintiffs regarding claim of properties situated in District Mohali and Rurki be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before court of competent jurisdiction. It was held that the court at Ambala has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the suit regarding the property situated at Ambala.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶26

case file.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioners contended that court at Ambala has jurisdiction to try the entire suit because part of the suit properties are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Ambala. There is considerable merit in the contention. Learned trial court while referring to section 16 CPC to pass the impugned order, failed to notice section 17 CPC. Section 17 CPC is reproduced hereunder:-

¶28

“17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts. - Where a suit is to obtain respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:

¶29

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.”

¶30

In the instant case, suit has been filed relating to properties

¶31

situated in territorial jurisdiction of three different courts. Consequently, in view of section 17 CPC, the suit could be instituted in any of the said three

¶32

Civil Revision No. 1138 of 2010

¶33

-4-

¶34

courts. Accordingly, the suit instituted at Ambala which has territorial jurisdiction over part of suit properties located at Ambala has territorial jurisdiction to try the entire suit including suit relating to the properties located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said court i.e. regarding properties located in District Mohali and Rurki. Approach of the trial court in the impugned order is completely and patently perverse and illegal and in violation of statutory provisions and suffers from jurisdictional error requiring interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The position would have been different if the court at Ambala had no jurisdiction at all relating to any of the suit properties. However, the trial court held that the said court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit relating to properties situated at Ambala. Consequently, in view of section 17 CPC, the trial court has territorial jurisdiction to try the entire suit relating to all the suit properties including the properties located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.

¶35

As a necessary upshot of the discussion aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/7 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application Annexure P/5 moved by defendants no. 1 to 3 and 1A is dismissed. The trial court shall now proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law.

¶36

January 10, 2012 'dalbir'

Jagdish Chander and Anr. v. Lalit Tara @ Prince and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chander and Anr. v. Lalit Tara @ Prince and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurtej Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh etc.

Jatinder Pal Singh Vs Bishan Singh Dhaliwal

Ramesh and Anr. Vs Bharat Bhushan and Ors.

Pirthi Pal Singh Vs Gurdeep Kaur and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Vinod Kumar

Major Singh Vs Darshan Singh