“Jurisdiction Goes to the Root of the Matter”: Delhi HC Sets Aside Trial Court Order, Invokes Section 24 CPC to Transfer Suit After Trial Court Admits Territorial Incompetence
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court, Single Bench presided over by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, stated on a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside an earlier order passed by the trial court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The matter pertains to a civil dispute involving cancellation of registered gift deeds, and the High Court has directed the transfer of the suit to the appropriate court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The petitioner, through his legal counsel, challenged the order dated May 14, 2024, passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 267/2023. The suit was filed by the respondent for cancellation of two registered gift deeds dated November 21, 2012, and December 4, 2012, concerning properties located at IX/214 and IX/215, Saraswati Bhandar, Ghas Mandi, Gandhi Nagar.
According to the petitioner, the properties in question fall under the territorial jurisdiction of Shahdara District and not the East District, where the suit was initially filed. The primary grounds for challenge were:
- The trial court recorded that it lacked jurisdiction as the properties lie outside its territorial limits, yet erroneously dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC by misapplying Section 21 of the Code.
- The dismissal was based on the ground that jurisdictional objections were raised belatedly, disregarding that such objections under Order 7 Rule 11 can be entertained at any stage of the proceedings.
The petitioner submitted that under Section 16 of the CPC, suits relating to immovable property are to be instituted in a court where the property is situated. The trial court, having acknowledged that the subject properties fall outside its jurisdiction, should have returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10.
"Section 16 recognizes well established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate," the petitioner argued. It was further contended that "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."
Reference was made to precedent judgments, including:
- Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 340
- Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 791
- Auto Engineering Works v. Bansal Trading Company & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 630
These authorities assert that any decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and that objections regarding jurisdiction can be raised at any stage.
The respondent, through her counsel, argued that the trial court was correct in entertaining the suit and objected to the petition on grounds of delay and intent to hinder proceedings. It was submitted that "the petitioner’s objection regarding jurisdiction is belated and thus misconceived."
The High Court stated the limited scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, stating that it can interfere only when findings are perverse. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Puri Investments v. Young Friends & Co. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1609/2022, decided on February 23, 2022, the court recorded:
"The High Court, under Article 227, can interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding forum only when findings are perverse i.e. A. Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence; B. Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence; or C. Based on inferences that are impermissible in law."
Upon reviewing the trial court’s findings, the High Court noted:
"In my assessment, Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) would be applicable in the present case, as the gift deeds pertain to immovable properties. Section 20 of the CPC, which addresses the cause of action, is not applicable here, as Section 20 is subordinate to Section 16."
The High Court stated that having held that the subject matter lies outside its jurisdiction, the trial court erred in retaining the suit on grounds that objections were raised late. Section 21 of the CPC, as cited by the trial court, is inapplicable at the trial stage.
"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."
The High Court held that a plaint can be returned at any stage under Order 7 Rule 10 if the court finds it lacks jurisdiction.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and chose to exercise powers under Section 24 CPC to transfer the suit instead of returning the plaint to avoid unnecessary delay. It stated:
"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."
The Court noted:
"The difference between Section 24 and Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC is that... all proceedings that were undertaken before the Court where a Suit was earlier instituted... can be saved."
Accordingly, the High Court ordered:
"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, where the suit property is situated, with direction that the case be tried from the stage it is transferred from the transferor court."
It further directed the parties to appear before the transferee court on April 17, 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nipun Arora, Ms. Ananya, Mr. Aman Singh, and Mr. Shivender Gupta
For the Respondent: Ms. Vibha Walia
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar v. Saraswati Devi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2127
Case Number: CM(M) 3824/2024
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
[Read/Download order]
