Ramesh Kumar vs Chander Mohan and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition is filed against the order of Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh dated 15.9.1994. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.2.1990 in regard to the property situated at Panchkula. Since the agreement was executed at Chandigarh, he filed the suit at Chandigarh. Objection was raised by the defendants to the jurisdiction of the Court at Chandigarh. The trial Court framed an issue among others, namely," whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit." By the impugned order, the trial court held that since the agreement was executed at Chandigarh, the suit is triable by the Court at Chandigarh as part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh. Aggrieved by the said order, the first defendant has preferred this revision petition.

u/s 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit relating to immovable property shall be filed in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Thus, it is clear that the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the property situated at Panchkula has to be necessarily filed in the Court at Panchkula. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff argued that since the agreement has been executed at Chandigarh, part of cause of action has arisen at Chandigarh and therefore, the Court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to try the suit. I am unable to accede to this contention. Section 16 of the CPC provides that a suit for recovery of an immovable property shall be instituted in the Court where the property is situated. The general rule is that the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action arises, can entertain the suit, is not applicable to the suits covered by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held in S. Muhammad Eusoof Maricar v. K. Subramanian Chettiar and other AIR 1950 Mad 272 that a suit filed by the vendee for specific performance of the contract of sale and for the recovery of possession is maintainable by the Indian court in whose jurisdiction the property is situated, no matter where such a contract is entered into. In view of the provisions contained u/s 16 of C.P.C. the suit must necessarily have been instituted within whose jurisdiction the property which is agreed to be sold is situated.

The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that u/s 21 of CPC the Objection has to be raised in the Court of first instant and the Ist defendant has not raised the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court at Chandigarh. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the first respondent is no maintainable. It is immaterial whether the first defendant has taken the objection or not. Admittedly, the 2nd defendant who filed the written statement has taken the objection to the jurisdiction of Court at Chandigarh. The trial court has framed an issue whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. When an issue has been framed, it does not matter whether the objection was taken by the Ist defendant or by the 2nd defendant. In fact, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, that a decree passed by the court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon.

In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of opinion that the Court at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, I allow the revision petition and direct the Senior Judge, Chandigarh to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. on 7.2.1998. The plaintiff shall take the return of the plaint and present the plaint at the Court of Panchkula on the same date.