Delhi High Court
K.S.Oil Ltd. vs Ring India Infotech Pvt. Ltd. on 29 January, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 35/2014
% 29th January, 2014
K.S.OIL LTD. ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Relan, Advocate.
VERSUS
RING INDIA INFOTECH PVT. LTD. ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.1810/2014(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No.1811/2014 (delay in filing)& CM No.1812/2014(delay in re-
filing)
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and re-filing
is condoned. CMs stand disposed of.
FAO 35/2014
3. This appeal impugns the order of the trial court returning the plaint
under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for filing to the court having correct territorial
FAO 35/2014 Page 1 of 4
jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the suit property is admittedly situated at Gurgaon,
Haryana and which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at
Delhi.
4. In an appeal such as the present the very first thing which the
appellant is required to file is the plaint inasmuch as it is that plaint which
has to be examined with respect to whether it is filed in the court having
correct territorial jurisdiction and which plaint has necessarily to be read
with Section 16 CPC. Copy of the plaint has not been filed with this appeal,
and I do not know whether the same is deliberate or otherwise. I therefore,
asked the counsel for the appellant to show me a copy of the plaint. A
reading of the copy of the plaint shows that besides various disputes between
the appellant/plaintiff/tenant and the respondent/landlord/defendant on
aspects of recovery of monies with respect to rent and non-liability with
regard thereto, there is also a prayer for the relief that the landlord be
directed to take physical possession of the tenanted property. Therefore, the
suit really is a suit with respect to immovable property, and Section 16 CPC
immediately comes into play. As per Section 16 CPC, suits with respect to
immovable property have to be filed where the immovable property is
situated and not at any other place. Supreme Court in the judgment of
Harshad Chiman Lal Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791 has held
FAO 35/2014 Page 2 of 4
that in view of non-obstante clause found at the beginning of Section 16
CPC, suits with respect to immovable property have necessarily and only to
be filed in courts where the immovable property is situated, and which is so
in spite of Section 21 CPC by which objections to territorial jurisdiction can
be waived and this is so because issues of territorial jurisdiction under
Section 16 CPC have to be taken as equivalent to inherent jurisdiction issues
in view of non-obstante clause in Section 16 CPC.
5. Therefore, once Section 16 CPC comes into play, there cannot be an
agreement to confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Delhi when they
do not have such jurisdiction in view of Section 16 CPC.
6. Counsel for the appellant argued that as of today, the issue of
possession is no longer relevant because possession has been handed back to
the respondent, however, I cannot agree with this argument because it is not
as if possession was handed over independently outside the court in terms of
settlement outside court but possession has been delivered in the suit
proceedings. It is not open to parties to file cases in courts which do not
have territorial jurisdiction, take benefit of orders passed in such suits with
respect to immovable property, and then claim that nothing turns with
respect to immovable property and therefore, for the other reliefs, the suit
should be entertained.
FAO 35/2014 Page 3 of 4
7. In view of the above, since essentially, the suit as the subject suit was
filed with respect to immovable property, only the competent court at
Gurgaon have territorial jurisdiction, and other reliefs being
incidental/related to the relief as regards the immovable property, the same
will therefore have to be decided in the competent courts at Gurgaon.
8. The appeal is therefore without any merit and is accordingly
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JANUARY 29, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
