When the cause of action for filing a suit is different, there is no jurisdiction conferred upon one Court to entertain suits pertaining to property situated in different courts-Supreme Court clarified Section 17 of C.P.C.

The Supreme Court has decided the issue regarding the interpretation of the word “any portion of the property” found in Section 17 of C.P.C. While deciding the jurisdiction of a court by applying the provisions of Section 17 of CPC, the Supreme Court held that though Section 17 permits to file a suit regarding immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts in any one of jurisdictional courts, the Supreme Court held, it can be applied only when there is a single cause of action. In other words, if there is different cause of action in respect of the immovable properties, single suit cannot be maintained by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of C.P.C.

The Supreme Court arrived at the following conclusions with regard to ambit and scope of Section 17 of C.P.C.

• The word ‘property’ occurring in Section 17 although has been used in ‘singular’ but by virtue of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act it may also be read as ‘plural’, i.e., ”properties”.

• The expression any portion of the property can be read as portion of one or more properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts and can be also read as portion of several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts.

• A suit in respect to immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated.

• A suit in respect to more than one property situated in jurisdiction of different courts can be instituted in a court within local limits of jurisdiction where one or more properties are situated provided suit is based on same cause of action with respect to the properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts”.

Apart from the above, the Supreme Court has also interpreted the meaning of the word “any portion of the property” found in Section 17 of C.P.C. The Supreme Court held that “There may be a fact situation where immovable property is a big chunk of land, which falls into territorial jurisdiction of two courts in which fact situation in Court in whose jurisdiction any portion of property is situated can entertain the suit. Whether Section 17 applies only when a composite property spread in jurisdiction of two Courts or Section 17 contemplate any wider situation. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the word “property” as occurring in Section 17 shall also include the plural as per Section 13 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 13 of the General Clauses Act provides:‑

13. Gender and number.

    -In all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.‑

• Words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and

• words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa.

Applying Section 13 of General Clauses Act, the Bombay High Court explaining the word “property” used in Section 17 held that it includes properties. We are also of the same view that the word “property” used in Section 17 can be more than one property or properties”.

Read the JudgmentSection 17 CPC- territorial jurisdiction