The main legal point established in the judgment is that a court within whose jurisdiction the property is not situated cannot decide the rights of the parties in respect of immovable property and give effective judgment ruling on the same.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 6.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi rejecting the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff originally filed a suit bearing No.238/2006 for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendant, The Sariska Palace, having its office in Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. In the said suit, the appellant had essentially prayed for grant of permanent injunction against the respondents from dealing with the Fort and the Palace in any manner situated at Kuchaman City, Tehsil Nawan, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. Ancillary reliefs regarding permanent injunction from carrying out any repair, construction, alteration or demolition or creating any third party interest in the suit property were also prayed for. The basis for filing this suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was that the appellant/plaintiff stated that she had filed a suit in Delhi High Court titled Priti Pratap Singh vs. Rani Prem Kumari & Others bearing No.2414 of 1994 challenging the Will purported to have been made in respect of the properties owned by him including the property of the present suit to a trust. Further, relief of partition and injunction in respect of the properties left behind by her father including the Kuchaman Fort and Palace was prayed for.

3. Notices were issued to the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 CPC bearing I.A. No.11751 of 1998 in Suit No.2837/1998 before the trial court stating that the respondent/defendant, Sariska Palace, was a division of Shebawheels Private Ltd. and the said defendant, Sariska Palace, was only managing the marketing of the Hotel Kuchaman Fort Palace for the purpose of tourism for and on behalf of one M/s. Rathore Hotels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. which has been given the power to run, maintain, advertise the Hotel Kuchaman Fort Palace. In view of the aforesaid application having been filed by respondent/defendant, Sariska Palace, a fresh application under Order I Rule 10 CPC bearing I.A. No.520 of 1999 came to be filed by the appellant for impleadment of M/s. Sheba Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rathore Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. as defendants to the suit. Vide order dated 9.7.2003, the High Court permitted the amendment to the suit and the impleadment of these two parties as defendants (now the respondents) to the suit. All the respondents/defendants were proceeded ex parte.

4. The ex parte evidence was adduced by the appellant. During the pendency of the suit, the status quo order had also been passed in respect of the suit property but on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, the suit was transferred to the court of District and Sessions Court and it came to be marked to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts for the purpose of adjudication which culminated into the impugned order dated 6.9.2006 directing the return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction as the learned judge was of the view that there was an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by the respondent to which reply had also been filed by the respondent/defendant No.1 but the said application was still pending.

5. The learned Additional District Judge formed the view since the Fort and the Palace was situated in District Nagaur, State of Rajasthan, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore, no effective relief could be granted by this court. The plaint was ordered to be returned for lack of territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Reference in this regard was made to Section 16 of the CPC and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard passed in The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & Others vs. Ranjit Kumar Mishra; AIR