Gujarat High Court
Ranjanben Kishobhai Bagthaliya vs Nehaben Manojbhai Bagthaliya on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 124 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 124 of 2025
==========================================================
RANJANBEN KISHOBHAI BAGTHALIYA
Versus
NEHABEN MANOJBHAI BAGTHALIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal from order is filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the CPC, challenging the judgment and order dated 18th August 2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, below Exhibit-1 in Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 2021, whereby it has returned the plaint to the plaintiff as per Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their original position before the Trial Court.
3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE 3.1. The appellant herein is the original plaintiff, whereas the respondent herein is the original defendant of Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 2021 filed seeking declaration and injunction Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined and to get the share in the movable and immovable property, which would be available to the plaintiff, claiming to be Class- I legal heir of one late Manojbhai, who died on 8th May 2021. 3.2. The plaintiff happens to be the mother of the late Manojbhai, whereas the defendant happens to be his wife, who is residing separately from the plaintiff at Gandhidham. The movable and immovable properties are situated at Gandhidham, which are outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Rajkot, wherein the suit was presented. 3.3. The plaintiff has referred in the plaint that on the demise of her son, an insurance amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- was received by his widow, i.e., the defendant, from the insurance company, and as she was not parting with any amount to the plaintiff, a settlement took place between the parties, whereby a Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') was executed between the parties at Rajkot, whereby the defendant agreed to pay a certain amount to the plaintiff. 3.4. As the defendant has not fulfilled her promise and Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined there are various movable and immovable properties of the late Manojbhai possessed by the defendant, the plaintiff, being Class-I legal heir of the late Manojbhai, filed the suit to receive her share.
3.5. It appears that after completion of pleadings, an issue was raised regarding the maintainability of the suit at Rajkot because the movable and immovable properties of the late Manojbhai are undisputedly situated at Gandhidham, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Rajkot. 3.6. After hearing the parties at length and after considering the various provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), and the decisions cited at the Bar, the Trial Court was of the opinion that the suit was required to be returned to the plaintiff to present it before the court at Gandhidham, District Kutch, where the movable and immovable properties are situated which are subject matter of the suit.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined order, the present appeal has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff.
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal C. Mehta would submit that the Trial Court has committed a serious error of law, inasmuch as it committed a jurisdictional error while returning the plaint to the plaintiff.
5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that the Trial Court has completely misread the plaint and the prayers made therein, thereby committed a gross error in law. It is submitted that the suit, though instituted for claiming a share in the movable and immovable properties of the late Manojbhai (who happens to be the son of the plaintiff), which are situated at Gandhidham, but as per the MOU executed at Rajkot, a part of the cause of action also accrued within the legal limits of Rajkot, and thereby, the suit was maintainable at Rajkot.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that when Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined the Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties at Rajkot, whereby the defendant had agreed to pay the share of the plaintiff, and she having not honored her commitment as per the MOU, the suit was instituted at Rajkot, where the plaintiff is residing. It is submitted that as per Section 20 of the CPC, when a part of the cause of action accrued within the local limits of the court at Rajkot, the suit is maintainable.
5.4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would submit that in the facts of the present case, Section 16 of the CPC would not be applicable and there is a complete non-application of mind on the part of the Trial Court while returning the plaint by placing reliance upon the aforesaid provision. 5.5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, learned advocate Mr. Mehta would request this Court to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal.
6. POINT FOR DETERMINATION 6.1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined case, the Trial Court committed any error while returning the plaint while exercising its power under Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC?
7. ANALYSIS
8. The facts hereinabove are not in dispute. It is an undisputed fact that the movable and immovable properties of the late Manojbhai which are subject matter of suit are situated at Gandhidham, which is undisputedly outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Rajkot.
9. A plain reading of the prayers which are made in the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff is not seeking any specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties at Rajkot, but rather is claiming her right under Hindu Law - Schedule I as a Class-I heir of the late Manojbhai, thereby claiming her share in the immovable and movable property of her son, the late Manojbhai situated @ Gandhidham, Dist :- Kutch.
10. Further, the cause for filing the suit, as is also narrated Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined in paragraph 11 of the plaint, would also indicate that the entire basis of the filing is not on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties but on claiming her right under Hindu Law - Schedule I in the movable and immovable property of her son, the late Manojbhai situated @ Gandhidham, Dist :- Kutch.
11. It is true that a reference to the MOU is made in the plaint and thereby, it has been cleverly averred in paragraph 14 of the plaint that as there was an MOU executed between the parties at Rajkot thereby, the Civil Court, Rajkot, has jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties.
12. It is not fathomable, as the plaintiff is not seeking any relief on the basis of the aforesaid MOU executed between the parties then, how a suit seeking relief by claiming a share under Hindu Law - Schedule I in movable and immovable properties which are situated at Gandhidham can be maintained at the Civil Court, Rajkot.
13. To better understand the controversy involved in the Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined appeal, it would be profitable to refer to Sections 16 and 20 of the CPC, which read as under:-
"SECTION 16 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.--Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits--
(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
(b) for the partition of immovable property,
(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,
(d) or the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,
(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,
(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:
Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Explanation.--In this section "property" means property situate in 1 [India] SECTION 20 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908
20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.--Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction--
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, providedthat in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises [Explanation].--A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in 3 [India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place."
14. The plain reading of Section 16 of the CPC would clearly indicate that when suit is instituted in relation to any movable and immovable property, it shall have to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
15. In such a scenario, undisputedly, all movable and immovable properties are situated at Gandhidham, and in that situation, as per Section 16 of the CPC, the plaintiff was required to institute the suit at Gandhidham.
16. So far as Section 20 of the CPC is concerned, it talks about other suits to be instituted against a defendant where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; the suit shall then have to be instituted in that court.
17. As observed hereinabove, the plaintiff is not asserting her Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined right to claim share in the movable and immovable properties of the late Manojbhai on the strength of the MOU executed between the parties at Rajkot, but in clear terms, as mentioned in prayer Clause 16 of the plaint, the plaintiff is asking for her share as per Hindu Law - Schedule I in the movable and immovable properties of her son. According to my opinion, on plaint reading of the plaint, Section 20 of the CPC would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
18. It is further required to be observed that mere reference to the MOU in the plaint would not be a ground to institute a suit at Rajkot when no performance has been sought by the plaintiff of such MOU and, as such, the entire cause and claim of the plaintiff was on the basis of her claim being a Class-I legal heir of the late Manojbhai as per Hindu Law, thereby, to claim her share in the movable and immovable properties of the late Manojbhai situated @ Gandhidham, Dist :-Kutch.
19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and after analyzing the aforesaid provisions of law and after going through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/124/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined wherein it has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon by the defendant, I am of the view that there is no jurisdictional error or any gross error of law committed by the Trial Court while returning the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before the competent civil court at Gandhidham. As such, I am in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by Trial Court while returning the plaint to the plaintiff which is requires to be presented before competent Civil Court, Gandhidham.
20. CONCLUSION 20.1. The Trial Court has not committed any error while returning the plaint while exercising its power under Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC.
20.2. Having so found no merits in the appeal, it requires to be dismissed and is hereby DISMISSED in limine. The civil application is also disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:44:07 IST 2025