Jurisdiction under Section 16 of CPC mandates that actions affecting property must be brought in the court where the property is situated, irrespective of contractual jurisdiction clauses.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated August 27, 2025 passed by Learned Judge, Bench VI City Civil Court at Calcutta in title suit no. 683 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the defendant/petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. treating the same as under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The plaint case is that the plaintiff being the absolute owner in respect of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint and being approached by the defendant/Opposite Party agreed to grant leave and license agreement for a period of 11 months on terms and conditions stated there in. The said document was signed and executed by the parties within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The plaintiff came to know on 30th March, 2023 on receiving a telephone call from a local resident that the defendant/petitioner is making massive damages and demolition in respect of the suit premises, including the structure thereof and on reaching, he found that the unauthorized construction is going on which has damaged the premises. After that an F.I.R was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party and thereafter the instant suit was filed seeking a declaration that the defendant is purely a licensee under the plaintiff and is not entitled to violate the terms and conditions of the said leave and license agreement dated March one, 2023. The plaintiff further prayed for an order of permanent injunction restraining the Opposite party from making any damages or additional alteration or unauthorised construction at the suit premises.

3. The defendant also filed a suit being title suit no. 312 of 2023, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court Baruipur Court. The plaintiff/petitioner being the defendant in the said suit took out an application for stay under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but such prayer was turned down on August 9, 2023, against which a revisional application was filed before the High Court at Calcutta being C.O. 3025 of 2023 and a coordinate bench of this court while disposing the revisional application by the order dated March 5, 2024 laid down the ingredients , required to be satisfied before a Court granting stay of suit and one of such was that a Court must come to the conclusion that the Court in which the previous suit has been instituted, must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit and accordingly, the subsequent suit was stayed as pending before the Baruipur Court till disposal of the Title suit no. 683 of 2023. The Opposite party filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 in the suit filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the judgement and order dated June 10, 2024, challenging the same another revisional application was filed being C.O no. 711 of 2025, where in a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the learned Court to treat the said application under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C

4. It is contended by the learned advocate of the petitioner, that there exists a distinction between the maintainability of suit and suitability. A suit may be legally maintainable in terms of cause of action and relief claimed yet not tenable by the Court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as situation in the present case. It is submitted that the Agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause limiting the jurisdiction to the courts at Calcutta. The registered office of the defendant/petitioner is within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court and therefore it was ne