Section 10 CPC incorporated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously filed suit: Supreme Court
Case title – M/S Acme Papers Ltd. Vs M/S. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
M/S. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Acme Papers Ltd.
Case no. – Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2664 of 2023 and No (s).499 OF 2024
Decision on – March 22nd, 2024
Quoram – Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Facts of the case
The issue in this case pertains to the transfer of petition from the Court of District Judge, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh to the City Civil Court, Calcutta, West Bengal.
The parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) whereby respondent had agreed to the suit property on a particular consideration. It was also agreed that the petitioner would obtain all necessary approvals/no objection certificates (NOCs) for the transfer of suit property and in case of unprecedented delay in obtaining the same, the petitioner would be at liberty to deal with suit property by treating the MoU as cancelled and/or terminated.
Subsequently, the petitioner could not obtain the necessary approvals required for selling the suit property and thus, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the MoU, which the petitioner now seeks to transfer to Calcutta where they have already filed a suit for declaration that the MoU stands terminated and is incapable of being acted upon.
Submission of the Petitioner
The Counsel submitted that since the MoU was executed in Calcutta, the Civil Court of Calcutta would be an appropriate forum to adjudicate the suit on the validity and enforceability of the MoU. He contended that the respondent’s suit for specific performance would only arise if the agreement was valid. Therefore, the Counsel submitted that the reliefs sought by the petitioner need to be decided first and the same cannot be raised as an issue before the District Judge, Sehora as it was already a part in their suit.
Submission of the Respondent
The Counsel submitted that the question of the existence of the MoU or the location where it was entered into had no nexus with the choice of jurisdiction. Whereas, the existence of the MoU and its specific performance are intrinsically connected and relate directly to the suit property, which is located in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh. Hence, he contended that the Court at Sehore is the appropriate forum to contest all the matters.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court observed that the petitioner’s reliance on the cause of action arising in Calcutta due to the MoU being executed at Calcutta is completely erroneous in view of Section 20 of CPC. It asserted that Section 20 of CPC which provides that a suit can be initiated where the defendant resides or cause of action arises is a residuary provision only applicable to cases beyond those in Section 15 to 19 CPC.
It also pointed out to Section 10 CPC which is incorporated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously filed suit. The Court held that since the suit property is located in Sehore, all property records and government documents would be present in the vicinity, including most witnesses and therefore, Court at Sehore is the appropriate forum to decide the case.
The Court in light of the above observations dismissed the Transfer Petition No.2664 of 2023 and allowed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 499 of 2024. Consequently, the TS No.1346 of 2023 pending before the City Civil Court at Calcutta, West Bengal was transferred to the Court of Principle Judge, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K