Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rambaran Mayashankar Tiwari, carrying on business as Bhole Shankar Flour Mill, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from removing a water tap or disturbing an underground cable laid on the suit premises. The suit premises was described in paragraph 2 of the plaint as an open portion of land admeasuring 12 feet by 20 feet. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, by judgment and order dated 10th March 2003, ordered that the plaint be returned to the appellant for presentation to the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the present Appeal from Order. The appellant contended that the suit was for an injunction simpliciter and not for any right in respect of a building, and therefore the City Civil Court had jurisdiction. The respondents supported the order of the trial court. The High Court examined the averments in the plaint, particularly paragraph 2, which described the suit property as an open portion of land admeasuring 12' x 20' and stated that it was appurtenant to a building. The court held that the suit was in respect of a right in respect of a building or part thereof, and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The court noted that the plaint itself indicated that the land was appurtenant to a building, and the relief sought was in relation to that land. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the City Civil Court returning the plaint for presentation to the Small Causes Court. The court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Order VII Rule 10 CPC - Jurisdiction - Where a plaint is filed in a court lacking jurisdiction, it shall be returned for presentation to the proper court - The court must examine the averments in the plaint to determine jurisdiction - Held that the City Civil Court correctly returned the plaint for presentation to the Small Causes Court (Paras 1-5). B) Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Exclusive Jurisdiction - Section 41 - Suit for injunction relating to land appurtenant to a building - The suit sought perpetual injunction restraining removal of water tap and underground cable on an open piece of land admeasuring 12' x 20' which was appurtenant to a building - Held that such a suit is exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (Paras 2-5). C) Civil Procedure - Interpretation of Plaint - Jurisdictional Facts - The court must look at the substance of the plaint and not merely the form - The plaint described the suit property as an open portion of land appurtenant to a building - Held that the suit was in respect of a right in respect of a building or part thereof, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of an open piece of land which is appurtenant to a building, or whether such suit is exclusively triable by the Small Causes Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the City Civil Court returning the plaint for presentation to the Small Causes Court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court
- Return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Exclusive jurisdiction under Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882
- Suit for injunction relating to immovable property
