Delhi High Court: If Court Has No Territorial Jurisdiction It Can't Assume Jurisdiction Because Challenge Was Not Raised At Earliest Opportunity

The Court disposed of a Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging a Trial Court's Order that dismissed the Petitioner’s Application filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC.

A Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, “Once having concluded that the subject properties are situated outside its territorial jurisdiction, the trial court while relying on Section 21 of the Code, has clearly erred in assuming jurisdiction over the matter, stating that the challenge to the jurisdiction had not been taken at the earliest opportunity.”

Advocate Nipun Arora appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Vibha Walia represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner sought to set aside the Trial Court's Order, arguing that the Trial Court acknowledged it lacked jurisdiction over the suit properties, as they were located outside its territorial limits, yet dismissed the Petitioner’s application. The Petitioner contended that Section 21 of the CPC, which the Trial Court relied upon, applied only to appellate proceedings, and that an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The dispute originated from two registered gift deeds executed by the Respondent in favour of the Petitioner, pertaining to two properties. The Respondent had filed a suit seeking cancellation of these gift deeds, alleging misrepresentation in obtaining her signatures.

The Petitioner raised the issue of the Trial Court's lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the properties fall within the jurisdiction of Shahdara District, not East District.

Court’s Observations

“Section 16 recognizes well established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situated has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interests in such property. Thus, in other words, a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment,” the High Court reiterated.

The Bench held, “Once having concluded that the subject properties are situated outside its territorial jurisdiction, the trial court while relying on Section 21 of the Code, has clearly erred in assuming jurisdiction over the matter, stating that the challenge to the jurisdiction had not been taken at the earliest opportunity. Even though, the said provision only applies to the proceedings before the appellate or revisional court and not when the issue of jurisdiction is raised before the trial court, which is contrary to the clear mandate of law.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “This Court has sufficient power under Section 24 of the Code to transfer the suit to the court of competent jurisdiction. Since the case before the trial court has already reached the stage of defendant’s evidence, denovo trial upon the return of the plaint would further delay the plaintiff’s case and would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff, interest of justice therefore demands that in the exercise of powers vested in this Court under Section 24 of the Code, the suit be transferred from the court of learned District Judge-05, East, Karkardooma to the court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma.”

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition.

Cause Title: Rakesh Kumar v. Saraswati Devi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2127)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Nipun Arora, Ananya, Aman Singh and Shivender Gupta

Respondent: Advocate Vibha Walia

Click here to read/download the Judgment