Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V . LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
M/s. Hot Male Retail Private Limited, Represented by its Manager R. Surendran, Chennai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
T. Varunkumar - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 3623 of 2019 & C.M.P. No. 17851 of 2021
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Territorial Jurisdiction - Civil Revision Petition - The court dismissed the petition against the order passed in a suit for permanent injunction, stating that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest available opportunity as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the lack of territorial jurisdiction must be accompanied by a failure of justice. The relief sought was 'in personam' and did not relate to any right in the immovable property, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering or alienating the property situated in Ambattur. The petitioners argued that the suit schedule mentioned property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, stating that lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a ground for rejection of the plaint. The court emphasized that territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest available opportunity and must be accompanied by a failure of justice. The relief sought was 'in personam' and did not relate to any right in the immovable property.
Issues: The main issue was whether the lack of territorial jurisdiction is a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest available opportunity as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and must be accompanied by a failure of justice.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against fair and decreetal order dated 22.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.6144 of 2018 by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.6144 of 2018.
2. O.S.No.6144 of 2018 is a suit filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering or alienating the property situated in Ambattur. It is not in dispute that all the defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Madras namely at G.A.Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai.
3. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the City Civil Court ought to have rejected the plaint since, the suit schedule mentioned property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai. Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure gives the grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. The lack of territorial jurisdiction is not one such ground. In fact, territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest available opportunity as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was presented in August, 2018, but the application for rejection was taken out only in April 2019.
4. Apart from that, the plaintiff has not shown what is the “failure of justice" that would occur in case, the suit is entertained by the City Civil Court, Chennai. As per Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, the question of jurisdiction must be accompanied by failure of justice. Even if one head is not answered, the suit automatically remains on the file of the Court. Further, the reading of the relief would show that it is a relief “in personam”. It does not relate to any right in the immovable property, but, seeks for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property. The decree if granted will not act on the property but act on the defendants. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the territorial jurisdiction of a court to entertain a suit for immovable property is determined by the location of the property as per Sec....
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC at any stage of the suit and the averments in the plaint are crucial for deciding su....
Objections to territorial jurisdiction should be entertained only if there has been a consequent failure of justice, as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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.
The court cannot reject a plaint partially; it has to be either rejected as a whole or not at all. The Court also cannot go into the truthfulness or veracity of the averments made in the plaint at th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
