2023 (3) TMI 166 - SC - Indian Laws

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

FUTURE SECTOR LAND DEVELOPERS LLP & ANR. Versus BAGMANE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

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 ... Seeking the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court - suit schedule properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts in Bengaluru or not - suit schedule properties are situate within the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts in Bengaluru - HELD THAT:- It is clear, (i) that suit concerns immovable properties which are not just described in the plaint schedule by way of empty formality but are clearly stated to be the subject-matter of the suit; and (ii) that the plaintiffs are actually questioning the right, title and interest of the contesting defendants to the suit schedule properties. The High Court was right in holding that the suit falls under the category of one, for the determination of any right to or interest in immovable property covered by Section 16(d). The contention that even if Section 16 applies, the suit would be saved by the proviso to Section 16, is completely misplaced. At least one of the reliefs which relates to possession, may not fall under the proviso to Section 16. The present suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is for preserving the subject-matter of the property through interim reliefs sought in the form of permanent injunction. The partition suit itself is of the year 2007 and we cannot lose sight of the ground reality that in most of the civil disputes, half the battle is won through interim orders. We do not think that the court should be a party to the practice of allowing a litigant to use one court for the purpose of temporary reliefs and another court for permanent reliefs - The plaint does not even show the particulars of the Office of the Registrar where the deeds of confirmation were registered and the deeds of power of attorney were registered and subsequently cancelled. Though a relief is sought to direct the Registrar to cancel the deeds of revocation of power of attorney, the details of the Office of the Registrar are not provided and he is also not made a party. The order passed by the High Court in the civil revision application arising out of the applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not call for any interference. However, as one portion of the impugned order by which the other application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands allowed, perhaps by way of inadvertence, is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed in part. 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.