C.R.No.2172 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2172 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Jagjit Singh Gill ...Petitioner Versus Satwant Kaur and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court dated 25.2.2011 declining the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) for returning the plaint on the ground that the trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction. 2. The facts may be briefly noticed. The plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the exclusive owner in possession of 1/4th share of the properties belonging to Arjun Singh. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code for returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction. The respondent contested the said application by filing a reply. The trial court vide order dated 1 C.R.No.2172 of 2011 25.2.2011 rejected the said application. Hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute relates to 18 properties out of which 17 properties are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Moga and it was only one property which is situated within the jurisdiction of District Courts at Ludhiana. According to the counsel, Section 16 of the Code provides for jurisdiction in respect of immovable properties and it provides that the Court where either the defendant resides or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction entire property is situated shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted that Section 17 of the Code is applicable to the instant case which relates to territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of suits relating to immovable property where the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of different courts. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 6. Sections 16 and 17 which are relevant for the decision of this revision petition read as under:- “16. Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate – Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits –a) for the recovery of immovable property within or without rent or profits, b) for the partition of immovable property, c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property, d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, 2 C.R.No.2172 of 2011 e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property, f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate; Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. 17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts – Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate: Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.” 7. According to Section 16 of the Code, the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Court is determined on the basis of residence of the defendant or where the entire immovable property in dispute is situated. However, Section 17 thereof applies when immoveable property situates within the jurisdiction of different courts. It was not 3 C.R.No.2172 of 2011 disputed that in the present case, part of immoveable property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of District courts at Ludhiana. Once that was so, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the jurisdiction at Ludhaina was barred under the Code. Further, the trial Court while rejecting the application of the petitioner had noted as under:- “Perusal of the plaint shows that plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration for the property situated in Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana along with other properties which are situated in District Moga. The Section 17 of CPC says that “where a suit is to obtain relief respecting or compensation for wrong to immovable properties situate within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate”. As such it is the option of the plaintiff to file the suit before any court of territorial jurisdiction of the property which is subject matter of the present suit. As such application filed by the defendant/applicant is declined.” 8. In view of the above finding, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. October 12, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ ` Judge 4