S. 16 of the Civil Procedure Code overrides S. 20; Suit should be filed where immovable properties are situated

M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. Suman for Sri C. V. Nagesh the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. L. Vishwanath the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to this petn. are that the respondent filed a suit in O. S. 15045/2001 on the file of the 26th Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, for recovering the suit amount from the petitioners herein. When the suit was pending, the petitioners filed I. A. III under S. 20 of CPC to dismiss the suit in limine or to return the plaint for proper presentation before the appropriate Court on the ground that that Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. After hearing both the parties, the Court has rejected I. A. III vide order dt. 11-10-2001. As against that order, the defendants/ petitioners herein have preferred this petition.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petrs. vehemently argued that in view of the agreement and also the memorandum of understanding, the jurisdiction of all other Courts have been excluded agreeing to file the dispute only before the Court at Bombay. In spite of that, the respondent filed the suit in the Court at Bangalore, which has no jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, he submitted that the Court below has committed an error in not allowing the I. A. as sought for.

( 4 ) REPELLING this arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the memorandum of understanding and also the agreement contain similar provisions to the effect that only the Court at Bombay will have jurisdiction to try and adjudicate such a dispute to the exclusion of all other Courts, since the immoveable properties against which the relief sought for, are situated in Bangalore and hence under S. 16 (c) CPC; the suit can be filed only in Bangalore. He also further submitted that the dispute arises not because of the agreement or memorandum of understanding but it is because of the subsequent development which compelled the respondent to file the suit. No part of cause of action arose at Bombay by which the parties could confer jurisdiction on a particular Court excluding all other Courts. Further, the petitioners are residing in Bangalore and carrying on their business in Bangalore. Therefore, the Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners which does not call for interference.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners to substantiate his arguments placed reliance on a decision reported in A. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A. P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239 wherein Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that where more than one court was having jurisdiction, contract to vest jurisdiction in one of them was not against public policy. In this case there is nothing to show that any of the causes of action arose in Bangalore except that the respondents" registered office is at Calcutta as could be seen in the cause title.

( 6 ) SIMILARLY, our High Court in D. Munirangappa v. Amidayala Venkatappa, AIR 1965 Mys 316 has held (Para 4)"every suit has to be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It cannot be contended that because a very small fraction of the cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of a Court, the plaintiff would not be entitled to institute the suit in that Court. Even a fraction of a cause of action is a part of the cause of action and therefore, if even a fraction of the cause of action accrues within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a Court, that Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Clause (c) of S. 20 is based on broad principle to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and inconvenience to the parties. "in this case as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, not even a fraction of the cause of action arose outside bangalore and the contract to exclude the jurisdiction of other Court and to vest only in Mumbai Court is improper.

( 7 ) THE Madhya

Click Here to Read the rest of this document