2019 (2) TMI 2016 - SC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - permissibility of instituting suit in one Court, where properties, which are subject matter of the suit are situated in jurisdiction of different courts have been permitted with one rider - cause of action for filing the suit regarding property situated in different jurisdiction is one and the same - HELD THAT - In a suit when the cause of action for filing the suit is different, the Courts have not upheld the jurisdiction of one Court to entertain suits pertaining to property situated in different courts. In Sardar Nisar Ali Khan v. Mohammad Ali Khan 1932 (4) TMI 22 - PRIVY COUNCIL , Privy Council had occasion to consider the case where subject matter of the suit were several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts. Suit was instituted in Oudh (which later became part of Uttar Pradesh). The Privy Council held that since there was different cause of actions, the same cannot be clubbed together. One of the properties, which was situated in Punjab was referred to in the suit as Khalikabad property. Although, suit with regard to the other three properties had similar cause of action but cause of action with regard to Khalikabad property being found to be different, the Court held that Section 17 Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable. The scheme as delineated by Section 39 indicates that when a decree is passed by a Court with regard to sale or delivery of immovable property situated outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court it may transfer the decree for execution to another Court. The provision clearly indicates that a decree of Court may include immovable property situate in local limits of that Court as well as property situated outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court passing the decree. Section 39(1)(C) re-enforces the conclusion that as per Section 17 suit may be filed with regard to immovable property situated outside the local limit of the jurisdiction of the Court. The partial partition of property is well accepted principle with regard to a joint family. The cause of action relating to Indore property and Bombay property were entirely different with different set of Defendants. The suit filed by the Plaintiff for Indore property as well as Bombay property was based on different causes of action and could not have been clubbed together. The suit as framed with regard to Bombay property was clearly not maintainable in the Indore Courts. The trial court did not commit any error in striking out the pleadings and relief pertaining to Bombay property by its order dated 17.08.2011 - A perusal of Sub-clause (1) of Order II Rule 3 provides that Plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly. What is permissible is to unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly. In the present case suit is not against the same Defendant or the same Defendants jointly. As noticed above there are different set of Defendants who have different causes of actions. The trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 - The High court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order of the trial court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Mis-joinder of Parties and Causes of Action
3. Interpretation of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
4. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 and Order II Rule 3 CPC
5. Validity of the Trial Court and High Court’s Orders

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The primary issue was whether the Indore court had the jurisdiction to entertain a suit involving properties situated in both Indore and Mumbai. The Appellant argued that the suit was maintainable under Section 17 of the CPC, which allows for the institution of suits concerning immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts. The Respondent countered that the properties and transactions were distinct, and thus, the Indore court lacked jurisdiction over the Mumbai property.

2. Mis-joinder of Parties and Causes of Action:
The Respondents contended that the suit suffered from mis-joinder of parties and causes of action, as it involved different properties, transactions, and defendants. The trial court agreed, stating that separate causes of action could not be combined in a single suit. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the causes of action related to the Indore and Mumbai properties were distinct and involved different sets of defendants.

3. Interpretation of Section 17 of CPC:
The court examined whether Section 17 of CPC, which allows suits for immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts, could be applied to the present case. It was argued that the word "property" in Section 17 should be interpreted to include plural properties, as per Section 13 of the General Clauses Act. The court agreed that "property" could mean "properties," but emphasized that Section 17 applies only when the cause of action is the same for all properties involved.

4. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 and Order II Rule 3 CPC:
The Appellant argued that Order II Rule 2 mandated that the entire claim in respect of a cause of action should be included in the suit, and Order II Rule 3 allowed for the joinder of several causes of action against the same defendant. The court clarified that Order II Rule 2 pertains to the inclusion of the whole claim based on a single cause of action, and Order II Rule 3 permits joinder of causes of action only against the same defendant or jointly against the same defendants. In this case, the causes of action and defendants were different, making the joinder inappropriate.

5. Validity of the Trial Court and High Court’s Orders:
The trial court's decision to strike out the pleadings and reliefs related to the Mumbai property was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the suit involved different causes of action and defendants, and thus, could not be combined. The court concluded that the trial court and High Court had correctly interpreted the law and dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court and High Court's decisions. The court held that the suit could not combine different causes of action and defendants, and the Indore court lacked jurisdiction over the Mumbai property. The interpretation of Section 17 of CPC was clarified to apply only when the cause of action is the same for all properties involved.