ORDER :

These civil revision petitions have been filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2018 made in O.S.Nos.113 and 114 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, thereby answered the preliminary issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction leaving rest of the issues to be answered later.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed the suits in O.S.No.113 of 2016 for (a). To pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff bank directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.8,98,419/- with future rate of interest 10.25% with yearly rests which is the contractual rate of interest from the date of plaint till the date of realization of entire amount within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (b).To pass a final decree against the defendant allowing the sale of plaint scheduled mortgaged property in order to realize the decree debts, if the defendant is not making the full payment to the plaintiff bank within the period stipulated by this Honourable Court and other reliefs and the suit in O.S.No.114 of 2016 for (a). To pass a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff bank directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.2,06,716/- towards loan with future rate of interest 9.75% with yearly rests which is the contractual rate of interest from the date of plaint till the date of realization of entire amount within the time fixed by this Honorable Court; (b). To pass a final decree against the defendant allowing the sale of plaint schedule mortgaged property in order to realize the decree debts, if the defendant is not making the full payment to the plaintiff bank within the period stipulated by this Honourable Court and for other reliefs.

3. It is seen that the petitioners' objection was that the suit properties are not situated in Ariyalur District and they are situated in Perambalur District, Kunnam Taluk. Therefore, as per Section 16 of CPC, a suit on mortgage has to be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where, the suit properties are situated. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the suits are not maintainable and the same have to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, the Court below decreed the suits with regard to the first substantial question of law regarding territorial jurisdiction and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these civil revision petitions.

4. The counsel for the petitioners also would submit that the suit properties admittedly are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Perambalur District, whereas, the suits were filed in the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur District. When a suit is filed as against the properties, Section 16 (d) of CPC would apply and the suit will lie within the Court's jurisdiction, where the property is situated. Without considering the same, the Court below decreed the suit and as such the judgment and decree passed by the Court below was without considering any territorial jurisdiction.

5. In so far as the maintainability of Civil Revision Petitions are concerned, this Court has ample power to set aside the judgment and decree under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when the Court below has passed the judgment and decree without any territorial jurisdiction. In support of the petitioners' contention, they also relied upon the judgment (2005) 7 SCC 791 reported in (Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd.,) para 16 is as follows:

“16. Section 16 thus recognises a well-established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interests in such property. In other words, a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment. The proviso to Section 16, no doubt, states that though the court cannot, in case of immovable property situate beyond ju