LAWS(BOM)-2004-11-65

RAJENDRA SINGH AIREN Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH AIREN

Decided On November 04, 2004
RAJENDRA SINGH AIREN Appellant
V/S
Mahendra Singh Airen Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 17th October, 2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar, in Special Civil Suit No.120 of 2002 rejecting the application filed under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, disputing the territorial jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the suit.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, drawing attention to the list of the properties appended to the original plaint filed in this Court as also paragraph 27 thereof and thereafter to the list of the properties annexed to the plaint submitted in the Court at Palghar as also paragraph 27 thereof, submitted that from the comparison of both the pleadings with the annexures in relation to the description of the properties disclose that the respondent No.1 after return of the plaint by this Court and while presenting the plaint in the Civil Court at Palghar had carried out certain changes in the said plaint and as the same was not permissible, the Court below erred in rejecting the application under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and deciding to proceed with the hearing of the suit. He further submitted that while dealing with the issue of the territorial jurisdiction, the trial Court overlooked the provisions of section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which speak of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits in respect of the immovable properties only in case a portion of the property is situated within the local limits of jurisdiction of such Court. The list of the properties annexed to the plaint nowhere discloses a portion of the property as such being situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Palghar. On the contrary, most of the properties are situated within the State of Madhya Pradesh, besides as regards the property described at Item No.3 though is situated within the jurisdiction of the said Court, there is merely an allotment letter in respect of the same in favour of the respondent No.1.