2023 (3) TMI 166 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court partially allows appeals, sets aside High Court order, directs representation in Bengaluru court.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the portion of the High Court's order that allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 ... Return of plaint for presentation to proper court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC - rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - jurisdiction to determine rights to or interests in immovable property under Section 16(d) CPC - proviso to Section 16 CPC and personal obedience reliefs - leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC to file substantive suit laterReturn of plaint for presentation to proper court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC - jurisdiction to determine rights to or interests in immovable property under Section 16(d) CPC - proviso to Section 16 CPC and personal obedience reliefs - Whether the plaint filed at Pune should be returned for presentation to the competent court in Bengaluru under Order VII Rule 10 CPC because the suit concerns rights to or interests in immovable property falling within Section 16(d) CPC. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the plaint and the reliefs sought, noting that the suit schedule properties are specifically described as the subject-matter of the suit and the plaintiffs challenge the right, title and interest of contesting defendants. Several prayers (including a prohibitory injunction against handing over possession) necessarily engage determination of rights to or interests in immovable property. The plaintiffs' attempt to characterize all reliefs as enforceable against defendants personally (relying on the proviso to Section 16) was rejected because at least one relief (possession-related) would require execution and enforcement in Bengaluru. The pendency of suits and an appeal in Bengaluru, the nature of reliefs (declaratory and injunctive, including mandatory directions affecting registration), and the absence of particulars about the Registrar who recorded deeds, demonstrate that the appropriate forum for adjudication of the substantive property disputes is the courts in Bengaluru. The High Court's conclusion that the suit falls within Section 16(d) and therefore that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the competent court was held to be correct and is confirmed. [Paras 24, 26, 27, 28, 30]The High Court's order allowing the revisions under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is affirmed and the plaint may be presented before the jurisdictional court at Bengaluru within four weeks.Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - consequences of rejection under Order VII Rule 11 and Order VII Rule 13 CPC - Whether the High Court correctly allowed the revision against the Trial Court by treating the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as allowed (i.e., whether the plaint was to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11). - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's reasoning in the impugned order addressed only the return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10, with no independent discussion of Order VII Rule 11. Allowing both Rule 10 and Rule 11 reliefs simultaneously produced a contradiction: rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 would eliminate the option of presenting the same plaint before another court (though Order VII Rule 13 permits filing a fresh plaint). The Court concluded that the High Court, by inadvertence, recorded that the Rule 11 application was allowed without any discussion or intention to reject the plaint. That portion of the impugned order was therefore set aside to remove the inconsistency. [Paras 10, 11, 30, 31]That portion of the High Court's order which records allowance of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is set aside; the Rule 10 disposals remain operative.Final Conclusion: Appeals partly allowed: the High Court's allowance of civil revisions under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is affirmed (plaint may be represented before Bengaluru court within four weeks); the incidental finding recording allowance under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is set aside as inadvertent. Remaining applications disposed of accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC2. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC3. Applicability of Section 16 CPC4. Declaratory and injunctive reliefs5. Interim vs. permanent reliefs6. Leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPCIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC:The appellants filed a civil suit in Pune against 141 defendants seeking various reliefs. Defendants 66, 67, 139, and 117 filed applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for the return of the plaint, arguing that the properties in question were situated within the jurisdiction of the courts in Bengaluru. The Trial Court dismissed these applications, but the High Court allowed the civil revision applications, directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the appropriate court in Bengaluru. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the suit concerns immovable properties and falls under Section 16(d) CPC, which mandates that such suits be filed where the property is situated.2. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:Defendant 117 also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and the suit being barred by the Companies Act, 2013. The Trial Court dismissed this application, but the High Court allowed it. The Supreme Court found this contradictory, as the High Court's analysis focused only on Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Supreme Court set aside the portion of the High Court's order that allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, clarifying that the rejection of a plaint under this rule precludes presenting the same plaint in another court.3. Applicability of Section 16 CPC:The appellants argued that the reliefs sought did not fall under Section 16 CPC, which pertains to suits involving immovable property. However, the Supreme Court found that the suit indeed concerned immovable properties, as the plaintiffs were questioning the right, title, and interest of the defendants in these properties. The Court held that the suit fell under Section 16(d) CPC, which requires such suits to be filed where the property is situated, thus supporting the High Court's decision to return the plaint.4. Declaratory and injunctive reliefs:The reliefs sought by the appellants included both declaratory and injunctive reliefs. The Supreme Court noted that these reliefs were intricately linked to the immovable properties in question. The declaratory reliefs sought to nullify certain deeds and confirm that the defendants had no rights to the properties, while the injunctive reliefs sought to prevent the defendants from transferring or dealing with the properties. The Court found that these reliefs required a determination of rights to immovable property, thus falling under Section 16(d) CPC.5. Interim vs. permanent reliefs:The appellants sought interim reliefs in the form of permanent injunctions while reserving the right to file a suit for specific performance and possession later. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that it would force the defendants to litigate in multiple jurisdictions. The Court emphasized that litigants should not use one court for temporary reliefs and another for permanent reliefs, as this would be unfair to the defendants and inefficient for the judicial system.6. Leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC:The Trial Court had granted the appellants leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC to seek larger reliefs in the future. The Supreme Court clarified that this leave did not affect the defendants' right to seek the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to return the plaint, allowing the appellants to represent it before the jurisdictional court in Bengaluru within four weeks.Conclusion:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the portion of the High Court's order that allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court confirmed the High Court's decision to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, directing the appellants to represent the plaint before the appropriate court in Bengaluru. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.