SRI GANESH D S vs SRI C A CHIKKANNA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6092 OF 2022 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI GANESH D S
S/O LATE D N SUBBU KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT D-202 BRIGADE GATEWAY,
DR RAJ KUMAR ROAD,
MALLESWARAM WEST
BEHIND ORION MALL
BANGALORE - 560 055
…APPELLANT








(BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)


AND:

SRI C A CHIKKANNA
S/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.237, 14TH CROSS
AGRAHARA LAYOIUT, JAKKURU POST,
YELAHANKA HBOLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
…RESPONDENT

Digitally

signed by
VINUTHA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(A) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 30.05.2022 PASSED ON

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



I.A.NO.5 AND IA NO.6 IN O.S.NO.6038/2020 ON THE FILE OF
THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH NO.3), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED
UNDER SECTION 9 R/W SECTION 20(c) OF CPC AND
REJECTING IA NO.6 FILED U/O.6 RULE 17 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who was
the plaintiff in O.S.No.6038/2020 challenging the orders
passed on IA.No.5 and IA.No.6 by the XV Additional City
Civil and Sessions judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-3). The
respondent herein was the defendant before the trial
Court.

2. The parties to the proceedings shall be referred to
as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of brevity.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



3. Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for
recovery of money. The prayer sought in the plaint is as
follows:
" A. Direct the Defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.2,51,33,375/- to the Plaintiff along with
future interest at the rate of 18% per annum
from 25.12.2020 till the date of realisation.
B. Grant permanent injunction restraining
the defendant his agents, or any other person
or persons claiming in trust or authority
under the defendant from alienating,
encumbering or creating third party rights in
respect of the suit schedule properties
subject to discharge of the suit claim.
C. Grant such other relief/s as this
Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of
Justice and Equity."

3.1 After the filing of the suit, the defendant, upon
summons being served, appeared filed an application IA
No. 5 under Section 9 read with Section 20 (c) of CPC for
return of the plaint. On the application being contested by
the plaintiff and on hearing the arguments of both the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



parties, the learned trial Judge accepted the contentions
put forth by the defendant on IA No. 5, negated the
contentions of the plaintiff, and accordingly allowed
application - IA No.5 and consequently ordered the return
of the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before the
appropriate jurisdictional Court. It is this order of the
learned trial Judge that is questioned by the
appellant/plaintiff on the following grounds.

4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
Sri.Anoop Haranahalli appearing for the appellant/plaintiff
that the trial Court has passed an order which is perverse
and arbitrary without application of judicious mind, and a
mechanical order is passed without considering the
provisions of Section 9 read with section 20 (c) of CPC. It
is also contended by learned counsel that the trial Court
has got swayed away by the schedule incorporated by the
plaintiff in the plaint of immovable property though the
plaintiff has filed an application IA No.6 to delete the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



schedule property as it was not relevant; the same also
came to be rejected in view of allowing the application IA
No.5 filed by the defendant.

4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff
further contends that Section 9 read with Section 20 (c)
of CPC would not be applicable to the present facts of the
case, as the suit is filed for recovery of amount and not for
partition of the immovable property, though there is an
immovable property as a schedule to the plaint.

4.2 It is further contended that the trial Court has
failed to consider the relief sought in the suit, particularly
the prayer for recovery of money from the defendant. The
trial Court has also failed to take into consideration the
fact that the addresses of both the plaintiff and the
defendant, as on the date of filing of the suit, are very
much within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at
Bengaluru, which is not in dispute. Instead of examining
the reliefs sought in the suit and the addresses of the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



plaintiff and the defendant, the trial Court has proceeded
to examine the schedule of the property and assumed that
the suit involves a relief for recovery of immovable
property. It has further failed to appreciate that the relief
relating to the property and the relief for recovery of
money arising out of the same agreement of sale executed
between the parties cannot be bifurcated. Hence, the trial
Court, by allowing I.A.No.5, has passed a perverse and
arbitrary order.

4.3 It is further contended that the trial Court has
failed to consider the fact that the suit is not one for
specific performance and that the claim for recovery of
money has no relation whatsoever to the location of the
property. Mere inclusion of the suit schedule immovable
property cannot be a ground for return of the plaint. It is
for the trial Court to examine the prayers and reliefs
sought in the suit and the addresses of the parties to

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



ascertain whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit
under Sections 9 read with Section 20(c) of CPC.

4.4 It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed
three suits against the very same defendant before the
City Civil Court, Bengaluru and that, subsequent to the
passing of the impugned order, the other Civil Courts have
upheld their jurisdiction to entertain the suits while
deciding the preliminary issue raised by the defendant
regarding the absence of jurisdiction to entertain the suits.
However, learned counsel contends that the said orders
were passed subsequent to the passing of the impugned
order and therefore, the same could not have been
considered by the trial Court. Hence, learned counsel
contends that the impugned order passed by the trial
Court is perverse and illegal and warrants interference by
this Court. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks to set aside
the impugned order and consequently allow the appeal.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



5. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent-
defendant vehemently contends that the defendant and
the plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
dated 30.10.2014, wherein the parties agreed that the
defendant had acquired 300 acres of land in and around
Bengaluru and Devanahalli for development purposes. The
plaintiff has filed three suits before the Civil Courts at
Bengaluru, out of which two suits have been filed before
the Courts having territorial jurisdiction at Devanahalli,
seeking appropriate reliefs. Therefore, since the
immovable properties are described in the suit schedule, it
is for the plaintiff to approach the Court having territorial
jurisdiction over the place where the properties are
situated and the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit before
the Civil Court at Bengaluru. Hence, the trial Court has
rightly allowed the application filed by the defendant,
holding that the Civil Court at Bengaluru does not have
jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the immovable
properties are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



the Court at Devanahalli and not within the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court at Bengaluru.

5.1 It is further contended that the Memorandum of
Understanding clearly contains an arbitration clause and
therefore, on this ground also, the suit would not be
maintainable, as the dispute between the parties is
required to be referred to arbitration for adjudication. It is
further contended that since the properties are situated
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at
Bengaluru, the question of entertaining the suit by the City
Civil Court, Bengaluru, does not arise. The impugned order
is justified and does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity. Learned counsel further contends that the
plaintiff has already filed two suits arising out of the very
same Memorandum of Understanding before the
jurisdictional Court at Devanahalli, where the properties
are situated. The plaintiff could very well have instituted
the present suit before the jurisdictional Court at

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



Devanahalli instead of pursuing the matter before this
Court, particularly when the properties are not situated
within its territorial jurisdiction. Hence, learned counsel
contends that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the
provisions of Sections 9 read with 20(c) of CPC and
allowed I.A.No.5, which does not call for any interference
by this Court.

5.2 Learned counsel for respondent relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ameet
Lalchand Shah and Others v. Rishabh Enterprises and
Another reported in AIR 2018 SC (CIV) 2484, in support of
his contentions.

6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
plaintiff and learned counsel for respondent - defendant,
the point that arise for consideration is as follows:
"1. Whether the impugned order passed by the
trial Court is justified and calls for
interference by this Court, particularly with
regard to the order passed on I.A. No.5?"

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed the
suit against the defendant seeking recovery of a sum of
Rs.2,51,33,375/- along with future interest at the rate of
18% per annum from 25.12.2020 till the date of
realisation, as well as the relief of permanent injunction.
The addresses of both the plaintiff and the defendant, as
mentioned in the plaint, are situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, which is also
not in dispute. No doubt, the plaint also includes a
schedule of immovable property comprising agricultural
lands situated at Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural
District.

8. What is required to be examined by the trial Court
while considering an application under Sections 9 and 20
of CPC is whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the suit. In this regard, it would be appropriate to extract
Sections 9 and 20 of CPC for the sake of proper
understanding.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



" Section 9.Courts to try all civil suits unless
barred .-The Courts shall (subject to the
provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to
try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of
which their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.
Section 20.Other suits to be instituted where
defendants reside or cause of action
arises .-subject to the limitations aforesaid,
every suit shall be instituted in a Court within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where
there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and
voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or
personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more
than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or
carries on business, or personally works for
gain, provided that in such case either the leave
of the Court is given, or the defendants who do
not reside, or carry on business, or personally
work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



9. On a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 20
of CPC, it is evident that there is no ambiguity in the
statutory provision, which stipulates that every suit shall
be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction: (a) the defendant or each of the defendants
where there are more than one, at the time of
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily
resides, or carries on business, or personally works for
gain. The aforesaid provision is squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case.

10. Admittedly, the suit is one for recovery of money.
Though the plaintiff has included the details of the
immovable property in the suit schedule, the same may
not have any relevance to the relief sought in the suit. It is
also pertinent to note that, after the defendant filed
I.A.No.5, which is the subject matter of the present
appeal, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.6 seeking deletion of the
suit schedule relating to the immovable property,

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



contending that the same has no relevance to the suit for
recovery of money. The trial Court has failed to take the
same into consideration and has misdirected itself in
arriving at the conclusion that, since the property is
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at
Devanahalli and the dispute arises out of a Memorandum
of Understanding executed between the parties, the suit
ought to be instituted before the Civil Court at Devanahalli
rather than before the Civil Court at Bengaluru.

11. As stated earlier, on a bare perusal of the
relevant provisions of Section 20(a) of CPC, it is evident
that a suit between two parties can be instituted before a
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides, carries on business or personally works
for gain, subject to the other provisions of the Code. The
confusion appears to have arisen on account of the
inclusion of the immovable property in the suit schedule,
which has led the trial Court to misdirect itself while

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



considering the question of territorial jurisdiction.
However, the fact remains that the plaintiff is not seeking
any relief in respect of the immovable property described
in the plaint. What was required to be examined by the
trial Court was whether the suit, in substance, is one for
recovery of money. When the relief sought is confined to
recovery of money and no relief is claimed in respect of
the suit schedule immovable property, the inclusion of the
said property in the plaint schedule has no relevance for
determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in the
present case.

12. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has
misdirected itself by taking into consideration the inclusion
of the immovable property in the suit schedule, which had
no relevance to the relief sought in the suit for recovery of
money. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial
Court allowing I.A.No.5 is perverse, illegal and arbitrary
and warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.

13. Though learned counsel has relied upon the order
passed by the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in
O.S.No.6041/2020, wherein the plaint was rejected on a
preliminary issue on similar grounds, the same cannot be
taken into consideration for the simple reason that the
said order was passed subsequent to the order passed by
the trial Court on I.A.No.5 in the present suit.
Nevertheless, this Court has already examined the legality
and correctness of the order passed by the trial Court,
which is the subject matter of the present appeal;

14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I
pass the following:
ORDER


i. This appeal is allowed ;

ii. The impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed on
I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.6038/2020 by XV Additional

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60898
MFA No. 6092 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010397562022



City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is
hereby set aside;

iii. Consequently, I.A.No.5 stands dismissed and the
suit is restored to its file;

iv. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit in the
very same Court, i.e., the XV Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru;

v. During the course of arguments, learned counsel
for appellant submits that he does not press the
challenge to the order passed on I.A.No.6. The
said submission is taken on record;

vi. In view of the fact that the suit was instituted in
the year 2020 and six (6) years have lapsed, the
trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the suit;

vii. Since the parties are present before this Court,
they shall appear before the trial Court on
30.11.2026 , without awaiting any further notice
from this Court or the trial Court.



Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE

paragraphs 1 to 4.1.. RCK
paragraphs 4.2 to end ..CPN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33