Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd (Formerly known as Bagmane Constructions Pvt Ltd) & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
Future Sector Land Developers LLP & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision Application No. 372 of 2022 With Civil Revision Application No. 5 of 2023 With Interim Application (ST) No. 1998 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 2 Rule 2, Order XXI Rule 32, Order VII Rule 10, Order 7 Rule 10 – Section 16, 16(d), 20, 20(b) – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 42 – Subject to limitations aforesaid – Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate – Whether suit is relating to immovable property or not – Held, It is clearly derivated that once suit is filed for declaration and injunctive reliefs on basis of MOU and averments centered around MOU, it would fall within ambit of Section 16 – In present case, Plaintiffs have attempted to join several causes of action in a single suit against multiple Defendants on basis of MOU executed with only some of Defendants – It is thus a suit for seeking specific performance of MOU executed by Plaintiffs with Defendant – However, substantive rights of Defendant, undoubtedly are trampled and distinctive reliefs are sought against them qua their documents – That apart, record indicates that some Defendants with whom MOU has been executed have resiled and returned monies received from Plaintiffs – There are substantive suit proceedings pending in respect of Applicant’s right and entitlement in Court at Bengaluru qua some of very suit properties – Pleadings and reliefs in plaint unerringly point out that suit is not for simplicitor seeking performance of personal obedience of Defendants, but for declaratory, cancellation and permanent injunctive reliefs – Indirectly it is a suit for specific performance of MOU – Hence, findings arrived at impugned order are wholly unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside - Impugned order is quashed and set aside – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Khambata, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant in CRA No.372 of 2022 and Mr. Y.K. Tiwari, learned Advocate for Applicant in CRA No. 5 of 2023; Mr. Dwarkadas, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Dhingreja, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 139.
2. Applicants have challenged the common order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting their Applications to return the plaint to the Plaintiff for filing before the appropriate Court.
3. For convenience, facts in CRA No. 372 of 2022 shall be referred to. By the present Civil Revision Application, Applicants have prayed for the following relief:-
4. The impugned order dated 22.04.2022 is a common order passed below Exh. 75, 77, 82 and 377 filed by Defendant Nos. 66, 67, 139 and 117 respectively under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) for a prayer to return the plaint to the Plaintiff for filing the same before the appropriate Court.
5. By the impugned order, Application Exh. below 75, 77, 82 and 377 have been rejected by the learned Trial Court.
6. The brief facts are set out as hereunder:-
7. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original Plaintiffs who have filed Special Civil Suit No. 921 of 2021 before the Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of damages against 142 Defendants in respect of suit properties situate at Bangalore.
7.1. Perusal of averments and prayers in the plaint reveal that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the Suit and sought reliefs against Respondent Nos. 3 to 142 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of immovable properties, namely bearing Survey No. 42/4, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57 64, 65 and 66 situated in Doddanekkundi Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore (E), Taluk, Bangalore Urban District and Survey Nos. 100, 101/1-2-3, 108, 109, 98/1 and 2 and 99, all situated at Mahadevapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore (E), Taluk, Bangalore Urban District (for short “the suit properties”). Admittedly, the suit properties are all situated at Bengaluru and the Civil Suit has been filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune.
7.2. Applicant in CRA No. 372 of 2022 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Bengaluru. It is in the business of property development and one of the leading real estate developers in the city of Bengaluru. Applicant is having substantial subsisting rights and interests in the suit properties by virtue of two Memoranda of Understanding (for short “MOU”) executed by it with one Bangalore Gorakshana Shala Society (Goshala) arrayed as Defendant No. 137 in the suit proceeding and with the legal heirs of one late Shri. Giridharlal arrayed as Defendant Nos. 1 to 136 therein. These rights pertain to joint development of lands admeasuring about 97 acres 16 guntas out of the suit properties. That apart, Defendant No. 137 i.e. Goshala has entered into two MOUs dated 30.08.2006 and 31.08.2006 with the Applicant for joint development of an area admeasuring 17 acres and 19 guntas out of the suit properties and have paid Rs. 11 crores to the Goshala and suit proceedings are pending in the Civil Court at Bengaluru. Applicant also claims to have executed a Joint Development Agreement dated 28.05.2007 with some of the legal heirs of Shri. Giridharlal and one Mr. Sathyanarayana for joint development of an area admeasuring 27 acres out of the suit properties.
7.3. Admittedly, some of the legal heirs of Shri. Giridharlal have filed a Civil Suit bearing O.S. No. 8230/2007 before the V
(1) Return and rejection of plaint – If a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, only remedy is to file a fresh plaint within parameters of Order VII Rule 13 of CPC and question of presen....
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
Jurisdiction over immovable property cannot be altered by agreement; the local court where the property is situated retains jurisdiction.
A suit for specific performance regarding immovable property must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is located, as per Section 16 of the CPC.
Agreement to sell – Even if suit for specific performance is decreed without specific decree for transfer of possession of suit property, same can be enforced only when trial court directs defendants....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a "suit for land" should be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, as determined by Clause 12 of the Letters Paten....
The court emphasized the right of shareholders to seek remedies in civil courts when concurrent NCLT proceedings exist, affirming jurisdiction based on personal obedience criteria for territorial sui....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
