9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit. 3. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents who were the civil revision applicants before the High Court. Shri Vikram Hegde, learned counsel accepts notice for defendant No.117 who was the applicant in the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 4. The appellants herein filed a civil suit on the file of the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, against 141 defendants seeking various reliefs. 5. After service of summons, defendant Nos. 66, 67, 139 and 117 filed separate applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court, on the ground that the suit schedule properties are situate within the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts in Bengaluru. 6. Defendant No.117 filed one more application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, contending that the court in Pune does not have territorial jurisdiction to grant reliefs in respect of immovable properties situate within the jurisdiction of the courts in Bengaluru and also that the suit is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no discussion on Order VII Rule 11 in the impugned order. Therefore, that portion of the impugned order which states that both the civil revision applications stand allowed, requires modification. 12. That takes us to the more contentious issue revolving around Order VII Rule 10 CPC. As we have seen earlier, the foundation on which an application under Order VII Rule 10 was filed, was that the suit schedule property is situate within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and that though the reliefs claimed are substantially in respect of the immovable property, they are couched in a language, by clever drafting, to appear as though the reliefs relate to enforcement of rights in personam. Therefore, it is claimed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper court. 13. The impugned order is assailed by Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs, primarily on the grounds: (i) that what is sought to be enforced in the suit are only contractual rights against the defendants; (ii) that the agreement between parties contain a recital conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the civil courts in Pune; and (iii) that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st appeal now pending in the courts in Bengaluru; x. That under the MoU/agreement dated 19.2.2019, the owner-defendants offered to sell and the appellants agreed to purchase a total extent of 87 acres and 27 Gunthas out of the total area of 93 Acres and 48 Gunthas, for a consideration of Rs.357,00,00,000 (Rupees Three Fifty-Seven Crores only); xi. That pursuant to the said MoU/agreement, the appellants-plaintiffs have paid, in the aggregate, an amount of Rs.14,12,82,369 (Rupees Fourteen Crore Twelve Lac Eighty-two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-nine only), on various dates; xii. That Clause 13.8 of the said MoU/agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts in Pune to settle any claim or matter arising out of the MoU/agreement; xiii. That contrary to the covenants contained in the MoU/agreement, defendant Nos.44 and 49 executed a deed of confirmation dated 12.1.2021 in favour of Bangalore Gorakshana Shala Society, and the said deed was also registered with the Office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar; xiv. That subsequently defendant No.27 executed a similar deed of confirmation on 16.4.2021 and defendant Nos.113 to 117 executed a similar deed of confirmatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 138 are not entitled to claim any right or ownership right on the basis of alleged deeds of confirmation, as stated in relief clause (a). e) It may kindly be declared that the alleged letter dated 24th June 2021 and 25th June 2021 issued by concerned defendants and the documents of ' cancellation of power of attorney dated 11th June 2021, are illegal, null and void and same are brought into existence by the concerned defendants in collusion with each other, without the consent and knowledge of the Plaintiffs and therefore same are not binding on the Plaintiffs. It be further declared that the such letter and document, is non-est in the eyes of law and hence liable to be ignored. f) The alleged documents of cancellation of power of attorney dated 11th June 2021, may kindly be cancelled with further directions to the concerned office of registrar, to take note of such cancellation in their record. g) The Defendants may kindly be restrained by decree of Permanent Injunction from executing any documents including Deed of Confirmation, Sale Deed, Agreement or entering into any kind of arrangement with the defendant No. 137 to 141 and/ or any third parties with respect to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nature of a mandatory injunction, to direct the concerned parties to cancel the deed of revocation of power of attorney with a further direction to the concerned Office of the Sub-Registrar to take consequential action. Two of the prohibitory reliefs seek to injunct the defendants from, (i) executing any documents; (ii) entering into any arrangement with third parties; and (iii) transferring, alienating or creating third party interests with respect to the suit schedule properties. Two of the prohibitory reliefs seek to injunct the respondents from asserting any right on the basis of the deeds of confirmation executed in favour of the Bangalore Gorakshana Shala Society. One prohibitory relief seeks to injunct the defendants from causing any breach of the Agreement dated 19.12.2019. The last of the prohibitory reliefs articulated in paragraph 50(l) of the plaint seeks to injunct the owner-defendants from parting with possession of the suit property to third parties and/or to defendant Nos.137 to 141. 18. Before we analyse the reliefs sought in this suit a little more deeper, it is also necessary to take note of the addresses shown in the plaint for all the 141 defendants. As per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iously the plaintiffs have not been successful in this tight-rope walking, as we see quite a few falls/slips. For instance :- (i) In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the appellants have referred to the properties in dispute as "suit property" and have categorically stated that, "the said properties are the subject matter of the present suit"; (ii) In paragraph 4, the plaintiffs assert as follows, "...and it was further represented that, the said Society i.e., Defendant No.137 has no right, title, share and interest in any portion of the suit properties..."; and (iii) In paragraph 38 of the plaint, the appellants have asserted that "...as per the documents on record, it is crystal clear that the Bangalore Gorakshan Shala Society and also Bagmane Construction Pvt. Ltd. have no right, title and interest with respect to the suit properties...". 23. Thus 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 propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of either of the parties to the suit properties. Therefore, the High Court was right in concluding that the suit is covered by Section 16(d) CPC. 29. It is true that the Trial Court has granted leave to the appellants in terms of Order II Rule 2(3) CPC, to file a substantial suit for specific performance and possession at a later point of time. That does not mean that the rights of the defendants to seek the return of the plaint can be curtailed. 30. In view of the above, we hold that 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 we have stated earlier, 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. 31. Therefore, the appeals are partly allowed, setting aside that portion of the impugned order where the application of defendant No.117 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands allowed. The other portion of the impugned order allowing the applications of the defendants filed under Order VII Rule 10 stands confirmed. It is open to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
