Interim Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Order on Preliminary Issue ..1.. In S.C. Suit No.1334/2020
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY.
ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 1334 OF 2020
Smt. Sonali wd/o Sushant Pawar & 2 Ors., ...Plaintiffs.
Versus
Smt. Amita Anand Pawar & 2 Ors., ...Defendants.
Appearance :-
Mr. B. K. Barve a/w Ms. Sheetal Tanpure, Advocates for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Vijay Rajput a/w Mr. Devdatta Chalke, Advocate for Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI AJIT N. MARE (C.R.No.3)
DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2021.
ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE
In a suit for partition the defendants have raised an objec-
tion as to jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that, few immovable
properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and there-
fore this Court has on territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain present
suit.
2. In the light of the objections raised, vide an order dated
08.02.2021 a preliminary issue is framed which is reproduced below
along with the findings thereon for the reasons to follow,
-- 1 of 6 --
Order on Preliminary Issue ..2.. In S.C. Suit No.1334/2020
Sr. No. ISSUE FINDING
1. Whether this Court has territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain suit in
respect of all the properties mentioned
therein?
In the Affirmative
3. Advocate for defendants submitted that, out of four immov-
able properties two immovable properties, which are also the subject
matter of the present suit, are situated at Satara and Village Kari in Dis-
trict Satara respectively. Considering that the suit is for partition of im-
movable properties and that these two properties are situated outside
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the suit is not entertainable by
this Court as it lacs territorial jurisdiction to deal with those two proper-
ties.
4. On the other hand, the Advocate for plaintiffs submitted
that, in view of Section 17 of CPC this Court does have jurisdiction to
try and entertain present suit. He relied on Shivnarayan (D) Thr. LRs.
V/s. Maniklal (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors, 2019 ALL SCR 663.
5. Advocate for plaintiffs also submitted that, all the defen-
dants are residing within the territorial limits of this Court and there-
fore even otherwise in view of Section 20 of CPC the suit is entertain-
able by this Court and this Court has every jurisdiction to try and enter-
tain present suit.
6. Perused. Heard.
-- 2 of 6 --
Order on Preliminary Issue ..3.. In S.C. Suit No.1334/2020
7. Perusal of plaint reveals that, the suit is for partition. The
properties are described in plaint paragraph No. 3 out of which two are
situated at Mumbai i.e. within the territorial limits of this Court. How-
ever, other two residential rooms and agricultural lands are situated
within the limits of District Satara, which is out of the territorial juris-
diction of this Court.
8. Provisions of Section 17 of CPC cover this type of eventual-
ity and provide that, if a suit is to obtain relief respecting immovable
properties situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit
may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdic-
tion, any portion of the property is situated.
9. In Shivnarayan’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ob-
served that,
“28. Section 16 and 17 of the C.P.C. are part of the one
statutory scheme. Section 16 contains general princi-
ple that suits are to be instituted where subject-matter
is situate whereas Section 17 engrafts an exception to
the genera rule as occurring in Section 16. Form the
foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclu-
sions with regard to ambit and scope of Section 17 of
C.P.C.
(i) The word ‘property’ occurring in Section 17 al-
though has been used in ‘singular’ but by virtue of
Section 13 of the General Clauses Act it may also
be read as ‘plural’, i.e. “properties”.
-- 3 of 6 --
Order on Preliminary Issue ..4.. In S.C. Suit No.1334/2020
(ii) The expression any portion of the property can be
read as portion of one or more properties situated
in jurisdiction of different courts and can be also
read as portion of several properties situated in ju-
risdiction of different courts.
(iii) A suit in respect to immovable property or proper-
ties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may
be instituted in any court within whose local limits
of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one
or more properties may be situated.
(iv) A suit in respect to more than one property situ-
ated in jurisdiction of different courts can be insti-
tuted in a court within local limits of jurisdiction
where one or more properties are situated pro-
vided suit is based on same cause of action with
respect to the properties situated in jurisdiction of
different courts.”
10. It is nobody’s case that, different causes of action are tried
to be joined together in present suit.
11. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the authority, cited
supra, therefore, this Court has got every jurisdic-
tion to try and entertain the present suit.
12. Advocate for defendants relied on judgment dated
22.02.2019 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vidya Niwas Co-op.
Hsg. Soc. Ltd., V/s. Sanjay Ramesh Agarwal and Ors., in Suit No.
179/2017 and submitted that, a reference is pending before the larger
-- 4 of 6 --
Order on Preliminary Issue ..5.. In S.C. Suit No.1334/2020
bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in respect of provisions of Sec-
tion 9A of CPC.
13. The question whether the provisions of Section 9A are at-
tracted or not, is not a question to be gone into in present case, as the
preliminary issue is already framed in view of provisions of Order 14
Rule 2 of CPC.
14. Considering the discussion in aforesaid paragraphs there-
fore, I hold that, the jurisdiction to try present suit is with this Court. In
the result, I answer the preliminary issue in the affirmative and pass fol-
lowing order.
ORDER
1. The objection to jurisdiction raised by defendants is
negatived.
2. It is held that this Court has jurisdiction to try and
entertain present suit.
3. Costs in cause.
(AJIT N. MARE)
Judge,
Date : 18.02.2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated On : 18.02.2021
Transcribed on : 22.02.2021
HHJ Signed on : 22.02.2021
-- 5 of 6 --
Order on Preliminary Issue ..6.. In S.C. Suit No.1334/2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
22.02.2021 6.03 p.m. Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge H.H.J. SHRI. AJIT. N. MARE
(Court Room No. 3)
Date of pronouncement of Order 18.02.2021
Order signed by P. O. on 22.02.2021
Order uploaded on 22.02.2021
-- 6 of 6 --