Suit for bare injunction over immovable property treated as suit for land; jurisdiction failed and interim relief fell away.

A suit for bare injunction concerning immovable property was treated as a suit for land under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, so jurisdiction could not be founded merely on the defendants' residence or business within the Court's ordinary original jurisdiction. The Court held that when the property lay outside jurisdiction, the suit was not maintainable there, because such relief substantially involved possession and title to land. As the Court lacked jurisdiction, the interim injunction could not continue, and the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for bare injunction in respect of immovable property situated outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Court was maintainable on the basis that the defendants resided and worked within jurisdiction, and whether the interim injunction could continue.

Analysis: Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was construed as containing separate categories for suits for land, suits where the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, and other cases where the defendant resides or carries on business within jurisdiction. A suit for bare injunction concerning immovable property was treated as a suit for land because it substantially concerns possession and title to land. The residence of the defendants within jurisdiction was held not to confer jurisdiction in a suit for land situated outside jurisdiction. Once the suit was found to be outside jurisdiction, interim relief could not survive and the plaint had to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

Conclusion: The suit was held not maintainable in the Court, the interim injunction was vacated, and the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation before the proper court.

---