JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C. M. No. 24874-C-II of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : 1. Defendant no.1 Harmesh Kumar Jain has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar. 2. Respondent no.1 – plaintiff Ravinder Kumar Jain has filed suit against defendant no.1 – petitioner and proforma respondents no.2 to 5 in the Civil Court at Rupnagar for partition of four properties i.e. one property situated at Rupnagar and three properties situated at Chandigarh. 3. Defendant no.1 moved application (Annexure P-4) for dismissing the suit qua properties no.2 to 4 because the same are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Rupnagar. Respondent no.1 – plaintiff, by filing reply, opposed the said application. The trial court, vide order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P-6), allowed the said application and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11-D of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) qua properties no. 2 to 4 situated at Chandigarh. 4. Appeal against order Annexure P-6 of the trial court, preferred by plaintiff, has been allowed by learned lower appellate court vide impugned judgment Annexure P-7 and thereby, order Annexure P-6 passed by the trial court has been set aside. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge judgment Annexure P-7 passed by the lower appellate court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the plaint was rejected by the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, which amounts to decree, as defined in Section 2 (2) CPC. Consequently, the impugned judgment would be appealable and the instant revision petition would not lie. 7. However, even on merits, the petitioner cannot succeed. Section 17 CPC provides for the situation arising in the instant lis. Section 17 CPC is reproduced hereunder :- “17. Consequently, the impugned judgment would be appealable and the instant revision petition would not lie. 7. However, even on merits, the petitioner cannot succeed. Section 17 CPC provides for the situation arising in the instant lis. Section 17 CPC is reproduced hereunder :- “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 : Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.” 8. In the instant case, the suit properties are situated within jurisdiction of different courts i.e. Rupnagar and Chandigarh. Consequently, in view of Section 17 CPC, the suit could be filed in either of the two courts. The plaintiff has opted to file the suit at Rupnagar. Civil court at Rupnagar has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit regarding all the four properties in view of express provision of Section 17 CPC. It may also be added that both the parties are also residents of Rupnagar i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of court at Rupnagar. Consequently, in view of Section 20 CPC also, the said court would have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 9. Counsel for the petitioner raised a very strange argument. It was contended that Section 17 CPC applies to a suit, where a single property is situated within jurisdiction of different courts. The contention is most misconceived and meritless. It is difficult to contemplate that a single immovable property is situated within jurisdiction of two different courts. Even otherwise, Section 17 CPC does not make any such stipulation that it would apply to a single immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of two different courts. On the contrary, Section 17 CPC contemplates a factual situation, as contained in the instant lis. In the instant case, the suit property, which comprises of four properties, is located in jurisdiction of two different courts. Consequently, in view of express provision of Section 17 CPC, the plaintiff had the option to file the suit in either of the two courts having territorial jurisdiction over the suit property. 10. In the instant case, the suit property, which comprises of four properties, is located in jurisdiction of two different courts. Consequently, in view of express provision of Section 17 CPC, the plaintiff had the option to file the suit in either of the two courts having territorial jurisdiction over the suit property. 10. Counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Begum Sabiha Sultan vs. Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan and others reported as, [2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1610] : AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1636. It is again surprising that learned counsel, who has fairly long experience at the bar, has cited this judgment, which is completely distinguishable on facts. In that case, the suit had been filed at Delhi, relating to a property situated entirely within District Gurgaon. No part of the property was situated at Delhi. In these circumstances, it was held that the court at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit for partition, wherein a superfluous declaration regarding a Will had also been claimed. Thus, in that case, the suit property was not situated in jurisdiction of different courts but was situated in jurisdiction of a single court and the suit was not filed in that court, but in different court, within whose territorial jurisdiction, no part of the suit property was located. Obviously, this judgment has no applicability to the facts of the instant case, because part of the suit property in the instant case is located at Rupnagar within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, where the suit has been filed. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the instant revision petition is completely meritless and frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------