Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 2016 - SUPREME COURTTerritorial Jurisdiction - permissibility of instituting suit in one Court, where properties, which are subject matter of the suit are situated in jurisdiction of different courts have been permitted with one rider - cause of action for filing the suit regarding property situated in different jurisdiction is one and the same - HELD THAT:- In a suit when the cause of action for filing the suit is different, the Courts have not upheld the jurisdiction of one Court to entertain suits pertaining to property situated in different courts. In Sardar Nisar Ali Khan v. Mohammad Ali Khan [1932 (4) TMI 22 - PRIVY COUNCIL], Privy Council had occasion to consider the case where subject matter of the suit were several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts. Suit was instituted in Oudh (which later became part of Uttar Pradesh). The Privy Council held that since there was different cause of actions, the same cannot be clubbed together. One of the properties, which was situated in Punjab was referred to in the suit as Khalikabad property. Although, suit with regard to the other three properties had similar cause of action but cause of action with regard to Khalikabad property being found to be different, the Court held that Section 17 Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable. The scheme as delineated by Section 39 indicates that when a decree is passed by a Court with regard to sale or delivery of immovable property situated outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court it may transfer the decree for execution to another Court. The provision clearly indicates that a decree of Court may include immovable property situate in local limits of that Court as well as property situated outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court passing the decree. Section 39(1)(C) re-enforces the conclusion that as per Section 17 suit may be filed with regard to immovable property situated outside the local limit of the jurisdiction of the Court. The partial partition of property is well accepted principle with regard to a joint family. The cause of action relating to Indore property and Bombay property were entirely different with different set of Defendants. The suit filed by the Plaintiff for Indore property as well as Bombay property was based on different causes of action and could not have been clubbed together. The suit as framed with regard to Bombay property was clearly not maintainable in the Indore Courts. The trial court did not commit any error in striking out the pleadings and relief pertaining to Bombay property by its order dated 17.08.2011 - A perusal of Sub-clause (1) of Order II Rule 3 provides that Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly. What is permissible is to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly. In the present case suit is not against the same Defendant or the same Defendants jointly. As noticed above there are different set of Defendants who have different causes of actions. The trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 - The High court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order of the trial court. Appeal dismissed.
|