Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Saroj Kalia - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Lakhwinder Singh - Respondent - Respondent
CR-4533 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure - Section 16 CPC, Section 20 CPC - The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document, and was never executed by the petitioner or her husband, and does not bear the signatures of the husband of the petitioner. The plaintiff has valued the suit to be for Rs. 15,00,000/-, whereas the agreement discloses sale consideration to be Rs. 1.5 Crores. The plaint was liable to have been summarily rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC for being insufficiently valued.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to sell regarding property situated in Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner/defendant sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, insufficient court fees, and the forged and fabricated nature of the Agreement to Sell.
Finding of the Court:
The Courts at Patiala lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected for being insufficiently valued.
Issues: a) Whether the Court at Patiala lacked territorial jurisdiction? b) Whether the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document, and was never executed by the petitioner or her husband, and does not bear the signatures of the husband of the petitioner. The plaintiff has valued the suit to be for Rs. 15,00,000/-, whereas the agreement discloses sale consideration to be Rs. 1.5 Crores. The plaint was liable to have been summarily rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC for being insufficiently valued.
Final Decision: The present revision petition is allowed. The respondent/plaintiff is directed to file a Civil Suit before the Courts at Gurugram in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff shall be entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the learned ACJ, Patiala and seek the adjustment of the court fee paid by him before the learned ACJ, Patiala.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 04.05.2018 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala whereby application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.1223 of 2017 titled as “Lakhwinder Singh Vs. Saroj Kalia” on 22.08.2017 (Annexure P8) against the petitioner/defendant seeking specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 28.03.2005 (Annexure P8/A) regarding property measuring 420 square meters situated at House No.A-20/15, DLF Phase-I, Qutab Enclave Complex, Chakkarpur Tehsil, District Gurugram, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). Respondent/plaintiff also sought a decree for permanent injunction. It is the plaintiff’s case that the petitioner/defendant and her late husband Sh. Surender K. Kalia had entered into the above said Agreement to sell dated 28.03.2005 with the plaintiff/respondent. Accordingly, plaintiff/respondent sought the issuance of a direction to the petitioner/defendant to execute the sale deed and to get the same registered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent after receiving balance consideration amount and to hand over vacant possession of the subject property to the plaintiff/respondent; or alternatively sale deed may be registered in the name of the plaintiff/respondent. A decree of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging, leasing, gifting, transferring, or disposing of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff/respondent.
3. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court was in patent error in dismissing the application of the petitioner as it failed to appreciate that the suit property is situated in Gurugram and therefore, the Courts in Gurugram alone would have exclusive jurisdiction. However, respondent/plaintiff has filed the present Civil Suit in Patiala. It is contended that the subject matter of the Suit, being the suit property, is situated outside the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Court, Patiala. It is submitted that as per Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), suits are to be instituted where the subject matter is situated.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further vehemently contends that the purported Agreement to sell dated 28.03.2005 has been categorically denied by the petitioner/defendant. It is submitted that the said agreement allegedly entered into between the respondent/plaintiff and the deceased husband of the petitioner/defendant on behalf of himself and the petitioner/defendant (the “Purported Agreement to Sell”) is forged and fabricated. The petitioner/defendant and/or her late husband Mr. Surender Kumar Kalia have never executed the purported agreement to sell and/or conveyed any right, title or interest to the respondent/plaintiff in relation to the suit property or otherwise.
5. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the veracity of the said Agreement to Sell is dubious also for the reason that the said agreement is on plain paper without any affixation/payment of stamp duty and therefore, the same is a wholly unreliable document not admissible as evidence. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the provision of Section 35 of Indian Stamps Act, 1899. The relevant extract of the Section 35 of the Indian Stamps Act is reproduced as under:
6. It is further submitted
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
Jurisdiction over immovable property cannot be altered by agreement; the local court where the property is situated retains jurisdiction.
A suit for specific performance regarding immovable property must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is located, as per Section 16 of the CPC.
The validity of the jurisdiction clause in an agreement and the determination of cause of action based on the place of goods supply and payment location.
Agreement to sell – Even if suit for specific performance is decreed without specific decree for transfer of possession of suit property, same can be enforced only when trial court directs defendants....
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 question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided based solely on the averments in the plaint. The court emphasized that such issues require evidence and should be ....
Jurisdiction clauses in contracts do not oust local courts if business activities affecting local parties are involved, and a plaint cannot be dismissed solely against some defendants if others remai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties can, by agreement, exclude the jurisdiction of one Court and the suit would lie in the Court to be agreed upon by the parties.
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
