SARDAR AUTAR SINGH Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the order dated 17 -3 -1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 110 of 1981, Baljit Singh v. Autar Singh and Anr. rejecting the plea about the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain suit by holding that the suit is maintainable in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as follows:

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist Sri H.L. Srivastava urged that learned District Judge has erred in assuming jurisdiction to entertain and decide the aforesaid suit for partition because no such suit for partition in respect of immovable property could be filed in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur as the immovable property was located in district Bara Banki and not at Sultanpur. Learned Counsel further urged that since the cause of action in the present suit for partition of immovable and movable properties was joint, and as such, entire suit could be filed in the Court of District Judge, Bara Banki and the same would not be maintainable in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur.

(3.) THERE appears to be no dispute about the jurisdictional facts and it is admitted that no portion of the immovable property is situate in district Sultanpur. The suit for partition of immovable property would be maintainable in the court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the property is situate. Reference may be made to Section 16(b) of the Code which provides that subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, a suit for the partition of immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. In Giridharilal Surana v. Mirzamal Agarwala, AIR 1962 Gau 95, the Division Bench of Assam High Court, while dealing with the question of jurisdiction in respect of immovable property, held that: