*Jurisdiction-Territorial Jurisdiction-Suit for Injunction-One of the reliefs which relates to possession, may not fall under the proviso to section 16 of CPC-Plaint returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC for presentation to proper territorial court.
*Specific Relief Act, 1963-Sec. 37 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sec. 16: Order VII Rule 10-Sult for Injunction-Territorial Jurisdiction-Return of Plaint-Suit schedule properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts in Bengaluru-Suit for injunction filed in court at Pune-One of the reliefs claimed in the sult is to restrain the defendants from handing over possession of the suit properties to third parties-If the plaintiffs succeed in getting the decree, and defendants disobey it, they had to go to court in Bengaluru for recovery of possession by execution of the decree under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC- Suit will require the court at Pune to embark upon an inquiry about the right, title and interest of either of the parties to the suit properties to grant the relief claimed in the suit-One of the reliefs which relates to possession, may not fall under the proviso to section 16 of CPC-Suit requires determination of any right to or interest in immovable property covered by section 16(d) of CPC-High Court rightly ordered return of plaint for presentation to proper territorial court-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 20, 21, 24, 28)
*Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order VII Rules 10, 11, 13-Return of Plaint- Rejection of Plaint-Remedy-If a plaint is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, the only remedy is to file a fresh plaint within the parameters of Order 7 Rule 13-Question of presenting the same plaint before the appropriate court does not arise. (Para 10)
*Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order VII Rules 10, 11-Return of Plaint- Rejection of Plaint-High Court allowed both the applications under Order 7 Rule 10 and Order 7 Rule 11 at one stroke-But, intention of the High Court to reject the plaint, is obvious from a reading of the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, where plaintiffs is granted liberty to present the suit before the appropriate civil court at Bengaluru-But if the appellants try to do that, a technical objection may be raised that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 also stood allowed-No discussion on Order 7 Rule 11 in the impugned order-Portion of the impugned order which states that both applications stand allowed, requires modification