These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, allowing two revision applications that were directed against two separate orders passed on the same day by the 9 Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, respectively in the applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC by some of the defendants in a suit. Defendant No.117 filed one more application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, contending that the court in Pune does not have territorial jurisdiction to grant reliefs in respect of immovable properties situate within the jurisdiction of the courts in Bengaluru and also that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Once an application under Order VII Rule 11 is allowed, the plaint stands rejected and hence the question of presenting the same plaint before the appropriate court does not arise. But as it sometimes happens, the High Court has overlooked the obvious and allowed both the applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 at one stroke. As we have seen earlier, the foundation on which an application under Order VII Rule 10 was filed, was that the suit schedule property is situate within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and that though the reliefs claimed are 5 substantially in respect of the immovable property, they are couched in a language, by clever drafting, to appear as though the reliefs relate to enforcement of rights in personam.
That at the time of making the proposal, the owner- defendants (defendant Nos.1 to 136) represented that Bangalore Gorakshana Shala Society, which is defendant No.137 have been making claims over these properties on the strength of a transfer deed dated 7.4.1941 but the said transfer deed setup by defendant No.137 was sham and bogus; iii.
That according to the owner-defendants, defendant No.137 illegally executed two Memorandums of Understanding dated 30.8.2006 in favour of defendant No.138 in respect of a portion of the suit schedule properties and also received an amount of Rs.11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crores only); 7 vii. That pursuant to the said MoU/agreement, the appellants-plaintiffs have paid, in the aggregate, an amount of Rs.14,82,369 (Rupees Fourteen Crore Twelve Lac Eighty-two Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-nine only), on various dates; xii. That until the plaintiffs file a substantive suit for specific performance and possession, the owner-defendants are not entitled to prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs; xvii. That the deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated 11.6.2021 is unilateral and not binding on the plaintiffs and that therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to both 9 declaratory reliefs as well as injunctive reliefs against the defendants. c)
It may further be declared that the owners-defendants are not entitled to execute such deeds of confirmation or any other document/s with respect to the suit properties, in favour of the defendant No 137 and 138 and/or in favour of any other third party, in view of execution of the agreement dated 19/02/2019 and contrary to the terms and conditions of the said agreement. h)
The Defendants, either by themselves or through their agents, representatives or anybody claiming through them may kindly be restrained by decree of Permanent Injunction from transferring, alienating or creating the third-party interest of whatsoever nature with respect to the suit properties, or creating any right of whatsoever nature in favour of Defendants j)
The defendants may kindly be restrained by decree of Permanent Injunction from using, acting upon or claiming any rights or raising any claim of whatsoever nature, on the basis of the alleged letter dated 24th June 2021, 25th June 2021 and the alleged documents of cancellation dated 11th June 2021.
To be precise, the reliefs sought in paragraph 50(b) to (e) are in the nature of declaratory reliefs and those sought in paragraph 50(f) to (l) are in the nature of injunctive reliefs.
The last of the prohibitory reliefs articulated in paragraph 50(l) of the plaint seeks to injunct the owner-defendants from parting with possession of the suit property to third parties and/or to defendant Nos.137 to 141. Therefore, it is clear that by instituting the present proceedings at Pune for temporary reliefs and reserving the 13 right to institute a suit for substantial reliefs at Bengaluru at a later point of time, the appellants-plaintiffs want to take these 141 defendants residing in ten different States of India on a Bharat Darshan from Pune to Bengaluru. The prayer in paragraph 50(l) is to restrain the owner-defendants by a decree of permanent injunction from handing over possession of the suit properties to third parties or to defendant Nos.137-141.
For instance :- (i) In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the appellants have referred to the properties in dispute as “suit property” and have categorically stated that, “ the said properties are the subject matter of the present suit ”; (ii) In paragraph 4, the plaintiffs assert as follows, “…and it was further represented that, the said Society i.e., Defendant No.137 has no right, title, share and interest in any portion of the suit properties…”; and (iii) In paragraph 38 of the plaint, the appellants have asserted that “…as per the documents on record, it is crystal clear that the Bangalore Gorakshan Shala Society and also Bagmane Construction Pvt. Therefore, the High Court, in our considered opinion was right in holding that the suit falls under the category of one, for the determination of any right to or interest in immovable property covered by Section 16(d). In other words, the present suit filed by the appellants- plaintiffs is for preserving the subject-matter of the property through interim reliefs sought in the form of permanent injunction.
have no right, title and interest over the suit properties, would make it necessary for the court at Pune to embark upon an inquiry about the right, title and interest of either of the parties to the suit properties. Therefore, the appeals are partly allowed, setting aside that portion of the impugned order where the application of defendant No.117 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands allowed.
Case Title: FUTURE SECTOR LAND DEVELOPERS LLP Vs. BAGMANE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. (2023 INSC 196)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001542-001543 / 2023
