Law and Practice : Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2023 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser
2023 (3) TMI 166 - SC - Indian Laws
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.