The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has no power to decide on rights and interests in immoveable property not situated within its territorial jurisdiction, as mandated by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 are mandatory and imperative, requiring the court to return the plaint if it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the cause.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of the instant appeal, the appellant herein seeks setting aside of order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the plaint of the appellant has been returned for its presentation before the competent court of jurisdiction.

2. A suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction came to be filed by the appellant herein against the respondent No. 1 before the court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar in respect of land measuring 09 kanals and 10 marlas underneath and appurtenant to Hotel namely “Golf View Hotel” at Gulmarg District Baramulla. Upon presentation of the suit the trial court in terms of the impugned order has returned the plaint noticing that the subject matter of the suit being immoveable property does not fall within its territorial jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, expressed its inability to adjudicate upon the suit.

3. During the pendency of the instant appeal, an application came to be filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein for impleadment as party respondents in the appeal claiming an interest and right in the property in question. This Court in terms of order dated 19.08.2020 allowed the application and the impleadment of the applicants therein as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the instant appeal.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order has been passed by the Court below overlooking the fact that the only contesting respondent-defendant in the suit had been the State of J&K and that it could contest the suit in any court within its limits and that the plaint could not have been returned in terms of the impugned order without entertaining the suit and issuing a notice inasmuch inviting an objection in this regard from the defendant as envisaged under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 would controvert the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant on the premise that the suit could not have been instituted before the court below in view of the specific pleading that the suit property did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is contended the court below rightly passed the order under challenge returning the plaint to the appellant herein.

6. According to Mr. Jagpaal Singh appearing counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 the court below while returning the plaint invoked the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 which mandates that a court at any stage of the suit shall return the plaint to be presented to the court in which the suit should have been instituted.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for suits to be instituted where subject matter is situated and Clause (d) postulates that subject to the pecuniary and other limitation prescribed by any law, suits for determination of any other right to or interest in immoveable property necessarily has to be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Section 16 thus, recognises a well established principle that action against 'res' or property should be brought only in the forum where the 'res' is situated. The court has no power to decide on rights and interests in immoveable property not situated within its territorial jurisdiction.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below ought to have issued a notice in the suit and then entertained an objection, if any, raised by the other side qua the territorial jurisdiction of the suit in terms of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is misconceived going by the plain language used in Section 16.

10. The court below has rightly returned the plaint to the appellant after noticing that the subject matter of the suit is situated beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Rule 10 of Order 7 is mandatory and imperat