### Transfer of Suit to City Civil Court Abrogates Prior Leave Granted Under Letters Patent Clause XII

The Plaintiff/Appellant filed a suit in the Bombay High Court in 2011 seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale and possession of land situated in New Delhi

As the property was outside Mumbai but the agreement was executed in Mumbai, leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was granted on August 17, 2011, to exercise jurisdiction

Following the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012, which enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction to ₹1 Crore, the suit was transferred to the Mumbai City Civil Court

The City Civil Court, vide order dated February 17, 2020, held it lacked territorial jurisdiction and returned the plaint to the Plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 for presentation to the proper court in Delhi

The Appellant challenged this, arguing that once Clause XII leave was granted by the High Court, the City Civil Court could not revisit the jurisdictional issue

1. Whether, on a true construction of Rule 3 of the Bombay City Civil Court (Transfer of Suits) Rules, 2012, leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent remains operative after the suit is transferred to the City Civil Court

2. Whether the City Civil Court has the power to examine the issue of territorial jurisdiction afresh and return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC after a statutory transfer from the High Court

Section 4A of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948, and Rule 3 of the Transfer of Suits Rules, 2012, which provide that transferred suits shall be heard as if "originally instituted" in the City Civil Court

Clause XII of the Letters Patent, which governs the High Court's original jurisdiction but does not apply to the City Civil Court

Section 16 of the CPC was applied, mandating that suits for land be filed where the property is situated

Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat regarding the definition of a "suit for land"

Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. regarding the revocation of leave in "clearest cases" of lack of jurisdiction

Section 120 of the CPC was also noted, which excludes the application of Sections 16, 17, and 20 to the High Court’s original jurisdiction

The Court reasoned that Clause XII of the Letters Patent is a special provision applicable only to the High Court; its benefits do not automatically extend to the City Civil Court upon transfer

Under Section 4A(2) of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, the transferee court must treat the suit as if it had been filed there initially, meaning the standard provisions of the CPC (Sections 16-20) apply in full force

Since the suit sought possession of land in Delhi, it was undisputedly a "suit for land" under the Adcon doctrine, and Section 16 of the CPC strictly barred its trial in Mumbai

The Court rejected the argument that the City Civil Court was "reviewing" a High Court order, clarifying that it was performing a fresh jurisdictional inquiry mandated by the change in the procedural field from the Letters Patent to the CPC

As there were no disputed facts regarding the land's location, it was a "clear case" where territorial jurisdiction could be decided on an application for return of plaint rather than waiting for a full trial

The Court held that the City Civil Court was justified in examining territorial jurisdiction afresh under Section 4A(2) of the Act

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's order to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 for presentation before the proper Court in Delhi