Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 20th October 2000 in respect of property situated in New Delhi. The suit was originally filed in the Bombay High Court with leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, which was granted on 17th August 2011. Subsequently, the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012 enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to Rupees One Crore, and the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court on 27th November 2015. The defendant filed a Chamber Summons under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 16 CPC (suit for land must be filed where the land is situated). The Trial Court initially dismissed the Chamber Summons, but on revision, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. On remand, the Trial Court, by order dated 17th February 2020, returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to the proper court, holding that the leave under Clause XII had no effect after transfer and that the suit could only be filed in Delhi. The appellant appealed. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the leave granted under Clause XII survives the transfer and the City Civil Court, stepping into the shoes of the High Court, cannot return the plaint. The impugned order was set aside, and the Chamber Summons was dismissed. The suit was directed to proceed before the City Civil Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Suit for Land - Section 16(d) CPC, Clause XII Letters Patent - The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land situated in Delhi was filed in the Bombay High Court with leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Upon transfer to the Bombay City Civil Court due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the City Civil Court returned the plaint holding that the leave had no effect. The High Court held that the leave granted under Clause XII survives the transfer and the City Civil Court cannot return the plaint as it steps into the shoes of the High Court. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Suits - Effect of Leave under Clause XII - Bombay City Civil Court (Transfer of Suits) Rules, 2012, Rule 3 - The City Civil Court, upon transfer, has the same powers and jurisdiction as if the suit was originally instituted in it, but the leave granted under Clause XII by the High Court is not rendered ineffective. The City Civil Court must treat the suit as if it was originally filed with such leave. (Paras 11-15)
C) Civil Procedure - Return of Plaint - Order VII Rule 10 CPC - The Trial Court erred in returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the leave under Clause XII had been validly granted and survived the transfer. The impugned order was set aside. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by the High Court survives the transfer of the suit to the Bombay City Civil Court upon enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction, and whether the City Civil Court can return the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17th February 2020 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Chamber Summons No. 2273 of 2015 in Suit No. 4241 of 2011 is set aside. The Chamber Summons is dismissed. The suit shall proceed before the Bombay City Civil Court.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Suit for land
- Clause XII Letters Patent
- Transfer of suits
- Order VII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 16 CPC
- Bombay City Civil Court (Transfer of Suits) Rules 2012
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 27
Appeal from Order No.407 of 2026 with Interim Application No.4613 of 2026
Mr. P. G. Sabnis a/w Ms. Kashmira Khedekar for the Appellant/Applicant; Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocate as amicus curiae a/w Ms. Mehak Shah; Mr. Praveen Sharma (Through VC) a/w Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar for the Respondents
Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against order returning plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction in a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of land.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (original plaintiff) sought to set aside the order returning the plaint and to allow the suit to proceed in the Bombay City Civil Court.
Filing Reason
The Trial Court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC holding that the suit for land situated in Delhi could not be tried in Mumbai despite leave under Clause XII of Letters Patent having been granted.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court initially dismissed the Chamber Summons for rejection of plaint; on revision, the High Court remanded the matter; thereafter, the Trial Court passed the impugned order returning the plaint.
Issues
Whether the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by the High Court survives the transfer of the suit to the Bombay City Civil Court?
Whether the Bombay City Civil Court can return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction when leave under Clause XII had been granted?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the leave under Clause XII was validly granted and survives the transfer, and the City Civil Court steps into the shoes of the High Court.
Respondent argued that the suit is for land situated in Delhi and must be filed there, and the leave under Clause XII has no effect after transfer.
Ratio Decidendi
The leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent by the High Court survives the transfer of the suit to the Bombay City Civil Court upon enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction. The City Civil Court, stepping into the shoes of the High Court, cannot return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the leave had been validly granted.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appeal is at the instance of the original Plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17th February 2020, passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Chamber Summons No. 2273 of 2015 in Suit No. 4241 of 2011, returning the plaint to the Plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for presentation to the proper Court.
Vide impugned order dated 17th February, 2020, the Trial Court opined that in view of Section 16(d) of CPC, the suit had to be filed within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.
Procedural History
Suit No. 2289 of 2011 was filed in the Bombay High Court for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land in Delhi. Leave under Clause XII of Letters Patent was granted on 17th August 2011. The suit was transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court on 27th November 2015 due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. Defendant filed Chamber Summons No. 2273 of 2015 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. The Trial Court dismissed it on 12th January 2017. On revision, the High Court remanded the matter. On remand, the Trial Court passed the impugned order on 17th February 2020 returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 16, Order VII Rule 10, Order VII Rule 11
- Letters Patent (Bombay): Clause XII
- Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012:
- Bombay City Civil Court (Transfer of Suits) Rules, 2012: Rule 3
