K.S.OIL LTD. v. RING INDIA INFOTECH PVT. LTD.

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. CM No.1811/2014 (delay in filing)& CM No.1812/2014(delay in refiling)

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and re-filing is condoned. CMs stand disposed of.

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 2014:DHC:562 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 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.

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