Territorial jurisdiction for immovable property suits cannot be ignored; supervisory correction under Article 227 is available for jurisdictional error.

A suit concerning immovable property must be instituted in the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is situate under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because the property was at Rameswaram and the pleadings did not establish any territorial nexus with Pollachi, the court at Pollachi lacked jurisdiction and the interim injunction passed there was liable to be set aside. Where a subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 instead of directing the aggrieved party to seek relief before that very forum. The revision petitions succeeded, the injunction was set aside, and the suit was ordered to be removed from the file for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit, which related to immovable property, was instituted in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (ii) whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of remedies before the trial court, where the subordinate court had acted without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the suit, which related to immovable property, was instituted in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The suit sought restraint in relation to property situated at Rameswaram, and the plaint itself treated the dispute as one concerning immovable property. Section 16 requires such suits to be instituted where the property is situate. The pleadings did not establish jurisdiction in Pollachi, and neither the parties nor the property had the necessary territorial nexus with that court. The Court found that the suit had been instituted in a forum that was not competent to entertain it, and that the injunction order had been passed in a proceeding fundamentally lacking jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be not maintainable before the Pollachi court for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the injunction order was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the availability of remedies before the trial court, where the subordinate court had acted without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that the general rule of pursuing remedies before the trial court applies where the subordinate court is otherwise competent. Where the court itself lacks jurisdiction, directing the aggrieved party to seek relief before that very forum would wrongly preserve an order passed without lawful authority. In such a situation, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may be exercised to correct the jurisdictional error and prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court also treated the suit and the interim order as an abuse of process because the proceeding had been instituted before an incompetent forum.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and in declining to relegate the petitioners to remedies before the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, the injunction order was set aside, and the suit was ordered to be removed from the file for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit concerning immovable property must be instituted in the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is situate, and where the subordinate court lacks jurisdiction, the High Court may correct the error under Article 227 instead of insisting on remedies before that very court.

---