J U D G E M E N T

I.A.14079/2021 (Seeking Return of Plaint)

1. An application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of defendant No.1 seeking return of plaint.

2. It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Partition, Declaration, Cancellation, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction in respect to the property of the deceased husband Late Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha and the matter is at the stage of completion of pleadings. The suit is in respect of various immovable properties and also in respect of movable properties. It is asserted that in terms of Section 16 of the CPC, a suit for partition can be filed only where the immovable property is situated. However, the properties in respect of which the partition is sought are located in Greater Noida. Since, no part of the immovable properties are situated in Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in regard to the immovable properties.

3. In respect of movable properties, it is submitted that none of the defendant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant No.1 is a permanent resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan, where he is staying with his daughter. Defendant No.4 is permanently residing at Kaikondanahalli, Bangalore. Defendant No.5 is a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is claimed that plaintiff has deliberately misrepresented that defendant No.1 is residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, when in fact he is a permanent resident of Jaipur. This Court, therefore, has no territorial jurisdiction and the plaint is liable to be returned.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that since all the immovable properties are located outside Delhi and all the defendants are also not resident of Delhi, the present suit for partition in respect of movable and immovable properties is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon Rajiv Seth vs. Daya Kishan Mehra (2005) 84 DRJ 75 and Ranjan Kumar Singh vs. Angoori Singh 2010 (116) DRJ 278 in support of his contentions.

5. No formal reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. However, reliance has been placed upon the case of Bhagwan Motiram Saraoji vs. Onkarmal Ishwardas & Ors. AIR 1952, Bombay 365 and Sardar Avtar Singh & Anr. vs. Baljeet Singh 1995 SCC OnLine Allah. 184 to assert that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present partition suit.

6. Submissions heard.

7. The plaintiff Sneha Srivastava has filed a suit for partition, declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff got married to Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha in the year 2016. He died on 14th May, 2021 due to COVID-19. The defendant No.1 Smt. Amita Sinha is the mother while defendant No.4 and 5 are the sisters of deceased Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha. Defendant No.2 is IDFC First Bank while Defendant No.3 is Max Life Insurance Company from which deceased Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha has purchased Term Insurance Policy.

8. It is submitted that Shri Binay Kumar Sinha father of Late Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha died on 18th October, 2017 due to chronic liver disease and complications. Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha was a highly qualified person. He was a Director and shareholder in the Company SR Ecommerce Factory Private Limited which was running an e-commerce company in the name and style of "Bookswagon" located at Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha was 50% shareholder in the said Company and was handling the business along with the other Director Shubham Jain who was having the remaining 50% share holding in the Company.

9. During the life time Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha had purchased two flats, the details of which are as under:

a. Flat No.1902, 19th Floor, Block T-11 in Ace Divino, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

b. Flat No.3152, 15th Floor, Tower 3, ATS Destinaire, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

10. Shri