IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 17 of the CPC allow a plaintiff to choose the territorial jurisdiction of a court when different courts have jurisdiction over immovable properties, subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court.

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the docket order dt.28.10.2022, whereby the plaint presented before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally, vide O.S.(SR) No.1743 of 2022, is returned with endorsement for being presented before the proper Court where the suit schedule ‘D’ property is situated, as being contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. Petitioner contends that initially, a suit for partition, separate possession, declaration of gift deeds as null and void and for grant of injunction in respect of four properties, being suit schedule properties A to D, was presented before the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and on return it was resubmitted before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally on 27.10.2022 with O.S.(SR).No. 1743 of 2022. The office of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District on the same date had returned the said suit, by taking the following objection:

4. Upon re-submission, on 28.10.2022 the learned Senior Civil Judge passed the following docket order:

“To file in proper Court where the Schedule ‘D’ property situates, as the market value is more than ‘A’ schedule property.”

“Heard. Perused. As seen from record and as per law, the objection dt.27.10.2022 holds good as per law. Moreover Court fee is also not paid before this Court. Hence, in view of above objection, this suit is returned to file before proper Court having jurisdiction.

Time (7) days.”

5. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the return of the plaint videdocket order dt 28.10.2022.

6. Petitioner contends that the office objection and the docket endorsement made by the Court below by which the plaint presented is returned, is contrary to the provisions of Section 17 CPC, which permits a suit relating to immovable property being situated in the jurisdiction of different Courts to be presented in any Court, where any portion of the property or one or more properties is/are situated. Since, the suit schedule ‘A’ property, from and among the four properties, falls within the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, the presentation of the plaint in the jurisdiction of Kukatpally Court is valid; and as regards the value of the suit, that the petitioner having paid the Court fee, the office of the court below ought not to have returned the plaint by up-holding the office objection dt.27.10.2022.

7. Petitioner further contends that the objection as to payment of Court fee before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and not before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kukatpally, is erroneous, as by valuing the suit for a sum of Rs.32,12,518/-, an amount of Rs.5,984/- was paid as Court fee initially, when the plaint was presented before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Secunderabad, on the basis of one of the document relating to the suit schedule properties having been registered with the Sub-registrar office falling under the jurisdiction of the said court; and that the said payment of court fee being duly acknowledged, vide certificate dt.30.03.2022, the Court below ought to have received the certificate dt.30.03.2022 issued by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, when the plaint was represented before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Kukatpally, on its return by the Court of Junior Civil Judge.

8. To support his contention, the petitioner has relied upon a Circular dt.26.02.2005 issued by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein it was clearly stated that all the Judicial Officers at the Unit are requested to accept plaints/petitions represented on the point o