Question: ‘X’ brings a suit in Patna in respect of two houses. One situated in Patna and the other situated in Muzaffarpur. Subsequently, the claim regarding the Patna house is withdrawn by ‘X’. Can the Patna court now adjudicate in respect of X’s claim regarding the house of Muzaffarpur? [Bihar C.J. 1986] Find the answer to the mains question… Read More »

Question: ‘X’ brings a suit in Patna in respect of two houses. One situated in Patna and the other situated in Muzaffarpur. Subsequently, the claim regarding the Patna house is withdrawn by ‘X’. Can the Patna court now adjudicate in respect of X’s claim regarding the house of Muzaffarpur? [Bihar C.J. 1986] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [‘X’ brings a suit in Patna in respect of two houses. One situated in Patna and the other situated in...

Question: ‘X’ brings a suit in Patna in respect of two houses. One situated in Patna and the other situated in Muzaffarpur. Subsequently, the claim regarding the Patna house is withdrawn by ‘X’. Can the Patna court now adjudicate in respect of X’s claim regarding the house of Muzaffarpur? [Bihar C.J. 1986]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [‘X’ brings a suit in Patna in respect of two houses. One situated in Patna and the other situated in Muzaffarpur. Subsequently, the claim regarding the Patna house is withdrawn by ‘X’.]

Answer

Section 17 provides for a situation where the immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit can be filed in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. Section 17 provides one property being situated in two different jurisdictions, however in the case at hand on the basis of the same cause of action, there are two properties but it will be treated as one property for the purpose of Section 17 (Karam v. Kunwar, AIR 1942 A 387. and Laxmi Kumar v. Krishnaram, AIR 1954 MB 156).

The facts of the case is less or more similar as in Khatija v. Ismail, (1890), wherein it was held that when once a suit has been instituted in one district in respect of the property situated partly in that district and partly in another district, the withdrawal of the claim in regard to the property in that district by a bona fide compromise does not take away the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the suit unless the compromise was shown to have been otherwise than bona fide or connived through fraud upon the policy of the rule of procedure as to local jurisdiction.

Thus, in view of the decision given in the case, it is clear that in the absence of any fact showing fraud or to deceive the jurisdiction procedure of the court, the Patna court can adjudicate in respect of X’s claim regarding the house of Muzaffarpur even after withdrawal of claim regarding the house of Patna.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
  2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
  3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
  4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
  5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
  6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
  7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of
  8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
  9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
  10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X
Updated On 2022-01-06T05:32:17+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story