CS(OS) 277/2021 Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CS(OS) 277/2021

SNEHA SRIVASTAVA

Wife of Late Ritesh Kumar Sinha

R/o R 404, Hyde Park,

Sector 78, Noida-201301.

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Sourabh gupta and Mr. Puneet

Yadav, Advocates.

versus

1. AMITA SINHA

Wife of Late Binay Kumar Sinha

Mother of Late Ritesh Kumar Sinha

Resident of C-1/401 Plot No.3, Capital

Apartment, Vasundra Enclave,

New Delhi-11 0096.

2. THE BANK MANAGER

IDFC First Bank

Daryaganj Branch

Ground Floor, P.No.2

Netaji Subhash Marg,

Daryaganj, New Delhi.

3. THE MANAGER

Max Life Insurance Company Limited

Ground Floor, A-1 /172, Janakpuri,

Near Metro Pillar No.614

New Delhi-11 0058.

4. RASHMI VERMA

Wife of Swatantra Verma

D-403, Celestial Apartment

2022:DHC:4102

CS(OS) 277/2021 Page 2 of 18

Behind Reliance Digital

Sarjapur Road

Kaikondanahalli

Bangalore-560035

5. RAJNI VERMA

Wife of Ravi Verma

Plot No. G-42, Subhash Nagar,

Shopping Centre

Behind Royal Hotel

Royal Palazzo

Landmark- Allahabad Bank,

Shashtri Nagar (Doodh Mandi)

Jaipur, Rajasthan-302016.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Bharat Garg, Mr. Anukalp Jain

and Mr. Jagat Upadhyay, Advocates

for defendant No.1, 4 and 5.

Mr. Rajnish Ranjan, Advocate for

defendant No.5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

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

2022:DHC:4102

CS(OS) 277/2021 Page 3 of 18

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. How