2011 (11) TMI 883 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Diplomatic immunity under the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972.
3. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Interpretation of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Applicability of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The original defendants filed a Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order of the Trial Court which rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. The Trial Court's decision was based on Section 86 of the Code. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff, leading to the revision application.

2. Diplomatic immunity under the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972:
The Union of India, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, issued a certificate under Section 9 of the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, which stated that the premises in question were recognized as the Consulate of the Czech Republic and that the Consul General was immune from civil, criminal, and administrative jurisdiction under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention. The certificate was issued after the impugned judgment and was presented as conclusive evidence under Section 9 of the Act.

3. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The Trial Court summarily rejected the plaint without framing a preliminary issue or considering any extraneous material. The Appellate Court found the Trial Court's order unsatisfactory and cryptic, lacking judicious application of mind. The Appellate Court's decision to entertain the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's order was justified as the Trial Court had not adequately addressed the issues.

4. Interpretation of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Section 86 deals with suits against foreign rulers, ambassadors, and envoys, requiring the consent of the Central Government. The proviso to Section 86(1) allows suits by tenants of immovable property without such consent. The plaintiff claimed tenancy rights, which fell within this exception. The Appellate Court correctly identified that Section 86 did not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this case.

5. Applicability of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961:
The Vienna Convention provides diplomatic agents with immunity from the jurisdiction of the receiving state, except in specific cases such as real actions relating to private immovable property. The case involved the interpretation of Articles 22, 30, and 31 of the Vienna Convention. The Court needed to determine whether the alleged commercial activity by the diplomatic agents fell within the exceptions to immunity under Article 31. The certificate issued under Section 9 of the 1972 Act was considered conclusive evidence but raised a rebuttable presumption, not an absolute one.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the certificate issued by the Union of India under Section 9 of the 1972 Act should not influence the decision at this stage. The matter should be decided by the Trial Court based on the available evidence and applicable law. The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged with no order as to costs. The Union of India could apply to intervene in the Trial Court, which would consider the application on its merits.