The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 17 of C.P.C. in cases involving immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (a) of C.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant against the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No.492/2019 titled as Smt. Kamini Sharma Vs. Praveen Sharma & another, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant had been ordered to be returned in view of Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. with a direction to present the suit before the competent Court.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are that a suit for partition and perpetual injunction against defendant-respondents had been filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, which was later-on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The suit had been filed for partition of nine immovable properties, out of which six properties are situated at Nainital (Uttrakhand), two properties are situated at Jaipur and one property is situated at Gurgaon and also other movable properties. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur by invoking its power under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. had returned the plaint to be presented before the competent Court on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 20 of C.P.C. the defendants are not residents of the jurisdiction of this Court and looking to the facts, pleadings and circumstances of the case, the suit relates to the movable property together with the immovable property and major part of the immovable properties are not situated in the jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of action does not arise in the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge, No,.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, while passing the impugned order, did not consider the facts and material available on record. The provisions of Section 17 of C.P.C. deals with the immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts and as per the provisions, when immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated; provided that in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by this Court. As such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhao Deshpande Vs. Madhav Dharmadhikaree, reported as A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1347.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents, while opposing the appeal, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Hani/ Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. M/s. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd. reported as 2004 (2) W.L.C. (S.C.) Civil 135 and Sandeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Others, reported as 2007 (2) W.L.C. (SC) Civil) 534.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Section 17 of C.P.C. reads as under: -

"17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts. - Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Court, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated: (Emphasis supplied)

7. Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court."

8. In the case of Laxmibai