The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 16(d) of the C.P.C. to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in suits involving immovable property.

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. On the rival submissions of the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the parties hereto and so well articulated, four important issues merits judicial determination in the present case. Primarily, the meaning of the words "determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property" in Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). Secondly, whether counterclaim under Order VIII Rule 6A of C.P.C. could be filed even if the subject matter of the counter-claim was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Thirdly, the ambit and scope of Order VIII Rule 6C of C.P.C. to exclude counter-claim if the Court was of the view that the claim ought to be raised in an independent suit? Finally and consequently, whether the Principal District Judge was right in returning the plaint under the provision of Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C.? All the above issues are taken together and sought to be determined by this Court.

2. The Order dated 25.03.2015 (the impugned order) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok (the Learned Principal District Judge) in Money Suit No. 21 of 2014 (the said suit) filed by the Appellant, the State of Sikkim (the Plaintiff) against Respondent No. 1, Keshab Pd. Pradhan (the Defendant No. 1), Respondent No. 2, Pushpa Pd. Pradhan (the Defendant No. 2), Respondent No. 3, Dibya Pd. Pradhan (the Defendant No. 3) and Respondent No. 4, Hirendra Pd. Pradhan (the Defendant No. 4) is impugned in the present F.A.O. No. 02 of 2015 (the present appeal).

3. The impugned order while disposing of a petition under Order VIII Rule 6(C) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.), filed by the Plaintiff for exclusion of the counter-claim put forth by the Defendants returned the plaint of the Plaintiff.

4. The learned Principal District Judge held:-

(a). the counter-claim filed by the Defendants seeking a decree declaring that the Plaintiff is in illegal occupation of the suit property; a declaration of eviction of the Plaintiff from the portion of the landed property covered by plot No. 291 and other relief’s are related to the immovable property situated in Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri, West Bengal and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge and thus, barred by Section 16(d) of the C.P.C.

(b). The said suit filed by the Plaintiff on careful perusal of the pleadings and the issue framed for settlement revealed that there were unresolved questions with regard to title between the parties and thus, it was not merely a suit for recovery of money but also for determination of the rights of the parties with regard to the suit land and thus, the said suit filed by the Plaintiff also fell under Section 16(d) of the C.P.C. and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Learned Principal District Judge and thus, the plaint was liable to be returned.

(c). In any event from the residential addresses of the Defendants furnished by the Plaintiff, it was clear that the Defendants are all residents of Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri.

(d). That the four cheques received in the name of the four Defendants were all received by the Defendant No. 3 at Turuk Kothi, Turuk, South Sikkim and thus the Court of the learned Principal District Judge had no territorial jurisdiction to try either the said suit or the counter-claim.

5. Mr. J.B. Pradhan, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Sikkim, the Plaintiff herein would argue that the plaint filed by the Plaintiff was purely a money suit and therefore, outside the purview of the Section 16 C.P.C. and squarely falling under the purview of Section 20 in as much as it has been specifically pleaded in the plaint that the part of the cause of action i.e. payment of Rs. 34,50,000/-, having been received by the Defendants at Gangtok had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge. The learned Additional Advocate General would argue that,