Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1009 (KAR)

Mahadeva Swamy v. Ramachandra

2009-12-16

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2009
Judgment :- This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1792/2004 against the order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 2. Learned City Civil Judge suomotu by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC has returned the plaint to be presented before the competent court in Mandya district on the ground that, suit is in respect of several schedule properties situated at different places and most of the properties are situated in Mandya district, and in view of the provisions of Section 17 of CPC, suit is required to be filed before the Civil Judge in Mandya district where the majority of properties are situated. 3. Respondent No.2 is represented by learned Counsel and respondent Nos.1 and 3 are served. Since the point arises in this case, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 4. “Whether a suit is required to be filed only in the place where more properties are situated in terms of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure?” 5. Section 17 of the CPC reads as under: “17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.- Where a suit is to obtain relief 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.” (underlined by me) 6. Section 20 of the CPC deals with suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitation, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 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 any of the defendants. 7. There is no dispute as regard to the cause of action. Section 21 of CPC provides for objection as regard to the jurisdiction and such objections are required to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity by the defendant. In this case, none of the parties have raised any objection as regard to the jurisdiction of the court. 8. 7. There is no dispute as regard to the cause of action. Section 21 of CPC provides for objection as regard to the jurisdiction and such objections are required to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity by the defendant. In this case, none of the parties have raised any objection as regard to the jurisdiction of the court. 8. No doubt, in case of suit relating to immovable properties, suit is required to be filed within the local jurisdiction of the court where the property or properties are situated. If there are more than one property and situated in the local jurisdiction of more than one court, Section 17 of CPC provide for action against the defendant in any one of the place in which the property is situated. Reading of Section 17 with Section 20 CPC makes it clear that, if one of the property is situated in the limits of the jurisdiction of the court and the defendants being residents of said place and cause of action having accrued to the plaintiff to file, irrespective of the fact as to whether more number of properties are situate in the local limits of jurisdiction of another court, does not bar the plaintiff from suing in a place where one of the property or portion of the property is situate. 9. In this case, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute that respondent No.2 is a resident of Bangalore and also insists for suit to be tried at Bangalore. The cause title also shows that, two of the defendants are residing in Bangalore and one is residing in Mandya. 10. The learned Judge interpreting the word ‘property’ has observed that, large extent of property is situated in Mandya and as such, suit should have been filed only in Mandya. The correct position of law as explained by this Court in AIR 1968 MYSORE 82 in the matter of Laxmibai –Vs- Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni And Others at para-18 reads as under: 18…….the correct rule of law in my view is that where there is a single cause of action to recover properties situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, a suit can be filed in any one of the Courts within the jurisdiction of which any one of the suit property is situate….” 11. It is also not in dispute that, suit is based on single cause of action. It is also not in dispute that, suit is based on single cause of action. In these circumstances, learned City Civil Judge was not justified in suomotu ordering for return of plaint, when there is no cause for return of plaint. In view of the same, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 19.3.2008 passed in O.S.No.1792/2004 on the file of Prl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore is set aside. The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the matter.