The main legal point established is that the nature of the relief sought in the amended prayer transformed the suit into a suit for land, impacting the court's jurisdiction and leading to the rejection of the plaint.

GA 1513 of 2014

Defendant No. 1 has prayed for rejection of the plaint filed in CS No. 70 of 2007 under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.

2. According to the defendant No. 1/petitioner averment in paragraph 12 of the amended plaint reveals that the subject matter of the suit is immovable property admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. at Eastern Metropolitan Bye pass at “Silver Springs,” No. 5, JBS, Halden Avenue, Kolkata-700 105 (hereinafter referred to as suit property) situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and the suit being the suit for land, this Court is devoid of jurisdiction to try the same.

3. The plaintiff/objector has contested the said application by written objection-on-affidavit contending inter alia, that upon representation made by Sri Piyush Bhagat, the Managing Director, person in control of management of the defendant no. 1 having ostensible authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of the said defendant No. 1, the plaintiff parted with money and had entered into an agreement with the said defendant No. 1 in February, 2003 for purchase of a space measuring about 3000 sq. ft. in the commercial block on the ground floor at the suit premises.

4. The breach on the part of the defendant No. 1 in refusing to perform the said agreement as recorded in the letter dated 12th February, 2007 was issued from No. 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata-700 017 and received by the plaintiff at No. 44, Ezra Street, Kolkata-700 001 within jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Mr. P.C. Sen, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff further submitted that the title to or interest in the property agreed to be sold by the defendant No. 1 is not the issue to be decided in this suit as no enquiry as to the title or possession or right to immovable property is required to be made in the suit, by reason of the prayer (c1) of the amended plaint as against the defendant No. 3.

6. It is submitted that six Cheque aggregating 20,00,000/- was handed over by the plaintiff on 3rd July, 2000 under the agreement and the same was encashed by the defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiffs’ agreement with the defendant No. 1 is prior to the agreement with the defendant No. 3. Accordingly, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC be rejected.

GA 2911 of 2016

7. This application has been submitted on behalf of the defendant No. 3 contending that the claim of the plaintiff as made in the amended plaint relates to the title and delivery of the possession of immovable property situated outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court as the plaintiff has prayed for execution and registration of a deed of conveyance against the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit property consequently upon execution and cause registration of necessary conveyance for transfer of the defendant No. 3 right title interest in the suit property. As such, this Court has to decide the total of the land under whom the said area is in possession, who is the owner and who has the authority to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff if at all under the law.

8. Mr. Pramit Kr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant No. 3 has submitted that the plaintiff has no oral or any subsisting agreement between the defendant No. 1 prior to the deed of sublease in favour of the defendant No. 3. Since it is a suit for land and this Court does not have any jurisdiction to try the instant suit, any decree passed in the suit will be a nullity and not binding upon any party. Thus, it is urged that the suit being C.S. 70/2007 be taken off the file and be dismissed with exemplary costs.

GA 3403 of 2016

9. By this application the defendant No. 3 has contended that it was added as party in the suit by an order dated 28th August, 2007 in TA No. 448 of 2007 without giving an opportunity to file an affidavit. Mr. Roy has submitted that right title and interest