Delhi High Court Directs Transfer of Property Suit to Correct Jurisdiction.


01 April 2025 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

In a ruling addressing a fundamental issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court has directed the transfer of a civil suit concerning immovable property from the East District to the Shahdara District, where the properties are actually located. The decision, delivered on May 28, 2025, by a single judge, overturned a trial court order that had erroneously dismissed an application challenging its jurisdiction.

The case, Mukesh Kumar v/s Saraswati Devi, centered on a suit filed by Saraswati Devi (plaintiff) seeking the cancellation of two registered gift deeds dated November 21, 2012, and December 4, 2012. These deeds, executed in favor of Rakesh Kumar (defendant), pertained to properties situated in Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar. The plaintiff alleged that her signatures on the gift deeds were obtained through misrepresentation.

 
 

The defendant, Mukesh Kumar, challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, arguing that the properties in question fall within the Shahdara District, not the East District where the suit was filed. He filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1860 (CPC), seeking the return of the plaint.

The trial court, in its order dated May 14, 2024, acknowledged that the subject properties were indeed outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, it dismissed the defendant's application, mistakenly relying on Section 21 of the CPC and stating that the objection to jurisdiction was raised at a "belated stage".

The High Court highlighted two key errors in the trial court's decision:

Misapplication of Section 21 CPC: The Court clarified that Section 21 of the CPC applies only to appellate or revisional proceedings and not when the issue of jurisdiction is raised before the trial court.
Timing of Objection: The Court reiterated that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC (which allows for the return of a plaint at any stage) can be exercised at any point in the proceedings.

The High Court emphasized Section 16 of the CPC, which unequivocally mandates that suits relating to immovable property must be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. It cited Supreme Court precedents, including Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan & Ors. and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr., which establish that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage.

Given that the trial court had already acknowledged its lack of territorial jurisdiction, the High Court found the impugned order to be erroneous. To prevent further delays and prejudice to the plaintiff, especially since the case had reached the stage of defendant's evidence, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 24 of the CPC. This section allows for the transfer of a suit from a court lacking jurisdiction to a competent court, while also permitting the transferee court to continue the proceedings from the stage at which they were transferred, thus avoiding a de novo trial.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dated May 14, 2024. The suit has been transferred from the court of the learned District Judge-05, East, Karkardooma, to the court of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma. The parties have been directed to appear before the transferee court on April 17, 2025. The petition and pending applications were disposed of in these terms.


Section 16., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908     

Section 21., Code of Civil Procedure - 1908  

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908