Nouveau Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Punita Capoor & Anr., 2026

The suit was valued at approximately ₹24 lakh and was initially instituted before the Bombay High Court.

Since part of the cause of action was alleged to have arisen in Mumbai, the plaintiff obtained leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent from the Bombay High Court on 17 August 2011.

Subsequently, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court was enhanced. Consequently, the suit was transferred from the High Court to the Bombay City Civil Court on 27 November 2015.

Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by Section 16 CPC, because the property was situated in Delhi.

The Trial Court initially declined to reject the plaint, but after the matter was remanded by the High Court, it reconsidered the issue.

On 17 February 2020, the City Civil Court held that the suit was essentially a “suit for land” and that, under Section 16 CPC, it had to be instituted before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the property. It therefore returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the proper court.

Nouveau Exports challenged that order before the Bombay High Court in the present appeal. 

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that the suit was a suit for land, because the plaintiff sought specific performance as well as possession of immovable property situated in Delhi. Under Section 16 CPC, such a suit is required to be brought before the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the immovable property is situated.

The Court further held that the earlier grant of Clause XII leave by the Bombay High Court did not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Bombay City Civil Court after the suit was transferred.

The critical statutory provision was Section 4A(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, under which the transferred suit is treated as though it had originally been instituted before the City Civil Court. Consequently, the City Civil Court was entitled to examine the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh.

The Court also clarified that this exercise did not amount to a review of the High Court's earlier order granting Clause XII leave. Instead, it was an examination of whether the transferee City Civil Court possessed territorial jurisdiction under the CPC.

The plaint was therefore correctly returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the appropriate court.

Here, the plaintiff did not merely seek contractual damages. It sought specific performance plus possession of property located in Delhi. Therefore, the territorial rule applicable to suits for land became decisive.

The plaintiff argued that once the Bombay High Court had granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, the transferee City Civil Court could not question the jurisdiction already accepted by the High Court.

The High Court rejected this argument. Clause XII operates in relation to the High Court's own original jurisdiction. It does not automatically transfer that jurisdiction to a different statutory forum when the suit is subsequently transferred.

The central reasoning rests on Section 4A(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948.

The provision treats a transferred suit as one that is effectively originally instituted before the City Civil Court. Accordingly, the City Civil Court must apply the jurisdictional provisions applicable to suits instituted before it, including Sections 16, 17 and 20 CPC.

The Court made an important distinction.

The City Civil Court was not reviewing or overruling the High Court's earlier grant of Clause XII leave. Rather, it was deciding whether the City Civil Court itself, as the transferee court, possessed territorial jurisdiction.

This distinction allowed the Court to reconcile the earlier High Court order with the subsequent statutory transfer.

The defendant had originally sought rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, the Trial Court concluded that the appropriate consequence was return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

The High Court approved this approach because the defect concerned the proper territorial forum, rather than a situation warranting rejection of the plaint itself. The plaintiff could therefore present the plaint before the appropriate court.

The Court also discussed Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and the principle that territorial jurisdiction can ordinarily involve mixed questions of law and fact.

However, the present case was materially different because there was no disputed factual question concerning the location of the property. The property was admittedly situated in Delhi and the relief included possession. Thus, the lack of territorial jurisdiction was sufficiently clear.