Madras High Court
Sakthivel vs State Bank Of India on 5 July, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
& CMP Nos.17600 & 17572 of 2018
CRP(NPD) No.2908 of 2018
1. Sakthivel
2. Udhayssooriyan ... Petitioners
Vs.
State Bank of India,
by its Branch Manager
Senthurai Village
Senthurai Taluk
Ariyalur District ... Respondent
CRP(NPD) No.2909 of 2018
Venkatesan @ Venkatachalam ... Petitioner
Vs.
State Bank of India,
by its Branch Manager
Senthurai Village
Senthurai Taluk,
Ariyalur District ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
Common Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated
05.04.2018 made in O.S.Nos.113 and 114 of 2016 on the file of the
Subordinate Judges Court, Ariyalur.
For Petitioners : Mr. M. Venugopal
(In both CRPs)
For Respondent : Mr.M.L. Ramesh
(In both CRPs)
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been filed against the
judgment and decree dated 05.04.2018 made in O.S.Nos.113 and 114 of
2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, thereby answered the
preliminary issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction leaving rest of the
issues to be answered later.
2.The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the
plaintiff. The respondent filed the suits in O.S.No.113 of 2016 for (a).To
pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff bank directing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
defendant to pay the sum of Rs.8,98,419/- with future rate of interest
10.25% with yearly rests which is the contractual rate of interest from the
date of plaint till the date of realization of entire amount within the time
fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (b).To pass a final decree against the
defendant allowing the sale of plaint scheduled mortgaged property in
order to realize the decree debts, if the defendant is not making the full
payment to the plaintiff bank within the period stipulated by this
Honourable Court and other reliefs and the suit in O.S.No.114 of 2016
for (a).To pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff bank
directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.2,06,716/- towards loan
with future rate of interest 9.75% with yearly rests which is the
contractual rate of interest from the date of plaint till the date of
realization of entire amount within the time fixed by this Honorable
Court; (b).To pass a final decree against the defendant allowing the sale
of plaint schedule mortgaged property in order to realize the decree
debts, if the defendant is not making the full payment to the plaintiff
bank within the period stipulated by this Honourable Court and for other
reliefs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
3. It is seen that the petitioners' objection was that the suit
properties are not situated in Ariyalur District and they are situated in
Perambalur District, Kunnam Taluk. Therefore, as per Section 16 of
CPC, a suit on mortgage has to be filed within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Court, where, the suit properties are situated. Therefore, according
to the petitioners, the suits are not maintainable and the same have to be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, the Court below decreed the
suits with regard to the first substantial question of law regarding
territorial jurisdiction and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
filed these civil revision petitions.
4.The counsel for the petitioners also would submit that the
suit properties admittedly are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of
Perambalur District, whereas, the suits were filed in the Subordinate
Court, Ariyalur District. When a suit is filed as against the properties,
Section 16 (d) of CPC would apply and the suit will lie within the Court's
jurisdiction, where the property is situated. Without considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
same, the Court below decreed the suit and as such the judgment and
decree passed by the Court below was without considering any territorial
jurisdiction.
5.In so far as the maintainability of Civil Revision Petitions are
concerned, this Court has ample power to set aside the judgment and
decree under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the Court
below has passed the judgment and decree without any territorial
jurisdiction. In support of the petitioners' contention, they also relied
upon the judgment (2005) 7 SCC 791 reported in (Chiman Lal Modi v.
DLF Universal Ltd.,) para 16 is as follows:
“16. Section 16 thus recognises a well-established
principle that actions against res or property should be
brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court
within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not
situate has no power to deal with and decide the rights or
interests in such property. In other words, a court has no
jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an
effective judgment. The proviso to Section 16, no doubt,
states that though the court cannot, in case of immovable
property situate beyond jurisdiction, grant a relief in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
rem still it can entertain a suit where relief sought can be
obtained through the personal obedience of the
defendant. The proviso is based on a well-known maxim
“equity acts in personam”, recognised by the Chancery
Courts in England. The Equity Courts had jurisdiction to
entertain certain suits respecting immovable properties
situated abroad through personal obedience of the
defendant. The principle on which the maxim was based
was that the courts could grant relief in suits respecting
immovable property situate abroad by enforcing their
judgments by process in personam i.e. by arrest of the
defendant or by attachment of his property.”
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that the suits were not on mortgage. The suits were filed under
Order VII Rule 1 CPC for recovery of money. Therefore, Section 20(c)
of CPC will only apply to the present suits to be tried by the Court below.
7.Admittedly, the petitioners borrowed loan from the
respondent bank, which is situated within the jurisdiction of Court below.
The prayer in the suits itself is only for recovery of money and in the
event of failure to pay the amount, then only attachment will have to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
proceeded against the petitioners. Therefore, the suits are very much
maintainable.
8.In so far as the maintainability of civil revision petitions are
concerned, the counsel for the petitioners has contended that when there
is a specific provision to file an appeal suit as against the judgment and
decree passed by the Court below under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC, the civil
revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are
not at all maintainable.
9.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned counsel for the respondent.
10.Admittedly, the suits were filed under Order VII Rule I
C.P.C for the following reliefs:
“O.S.No.113 of 2016
(a).To pass a preliminary decree in favour of the
plaintiff bank directing the defendant to pay the
sum of Rs.8,98,419/- with future rate of interest
10.25% with yearly rests which is the contractual
rate of interest from the date of plaint till the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
of realization of entire amount within the time
fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
(b).To pass a final decree against the defendant
allowing the sale of plaint scheduled mortgaged
property in order to realize the decree debts, if
the defendnat is not making the full payment to
the plaintiff bank within the period stipulated by
this Honourable Court.
(c).To award cost to the plaintiff from the
defendant and:
(d).To grant such other relief as this Honourable
Court may deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of this case and thus render
justice.”
O.S.No.114 of 2016
(a).To pass a preliminary decree in favour of the
plaintiff bank directing the defendnat to pay the
sum of Rs.2,06,716/- towards loan with future
rate of interest 9.75% with yearly rests which is
the contractual rate of interest from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
plaint till the date of realization of entire amount
within the time fixed by this Honorable Court:
(b).To pass a final decree against the
defendant allowing the sale of plaint schedule
mortgaged property in order to realize the decree
debts, if the defendant is not making the full
payment to the plaintiff bank within the period
stipulated by this Honourable Court.
(c).To award cost to the plaintiff from
the defendant and:
(d).To grant such other relief as this
Honourable court may deems fit and proper in
the circumstances of this case and thus render
justice.”
11.Therefore, the suits are filed for recovery of money. If the
petitioners fail to pay the amount, then only the attachment of property
will arise. Though the property is situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of Perambalur District, the respondent bank is situated within
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
the Ariyalur District and the petitioners borrowed loan from the
respondent bank. Therefore, the Court below rightly dealt with the rival
contention raised by the petitioners and answered the preliminary issue.
In so far as the maintainability of CRP filed against the judgment and
decreed passed in the suits are concerned, when there is specific
provision relief to file the appeal suit as against the judgment and decree
available under Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C, the civil revision petitions are not
maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, the civil revision petitions are dismissed.
Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable
to this CRPs. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appeal in
the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index: Yes/No 05.07.2021
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
sms
Note: Registry is directed to return the original
Judgment and decree to the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
To:
1.State Bank of India,
by its Branch Manager
Senthurai Village, Senthurai Taluk,
Ariyalur District.
2.The Subordinate Court, Ariyalur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
sms
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos. 2908 and 2909 of 2018
&
CMP Nos.17600 & 17572 of 2018
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
