With Defendant Residing In Bengaluru, Karnataka HC Restores ₹2.51-Crore Money Suit, Says Devanahalli Land Schedule Alone Doesn’t Shift Jurisdiction

The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover ₹2,51,33,375 with interest and sought a permanent injunction concerning properties described in the plaint schedule.

The scheduled agricultural lands were situated in Devanahalli Taluk, while both parties’ pleaded addresses were within Bengaluru’s territorial jurisdiction.

The defendant applied under Sections 9 and 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking return of the plaint. The trial court allowed that application, reasoning that the suit should be brought where the properties were situated.

The plaintiff’s application to delete the property schedule was also rejected; in the appeal, however, the plaintiff did not press the challenge to that ruling.

Section 9 CPC confers jurisdiction on civil courts to try suits of a civil nature unless their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred.

Under Section 20(a) CPC, a suit may be instituted where the defendant, at the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain; Section 20(c) permits institution where the cause of action arises wholly or in part.

The court treated the defendant’s residence within Bengaluru’s territorial jurisdiction as sufficient under Section 20(a) for this money-recovery suit, and held that the location of scheduled property was not determinative where no relief was claimed in respect of it.

The court focused on the substance of the suit: the plaintiff sought recovery of money and did not seek relief concerning the Devanahalli properties.

Because both parties’ pleaded addresses fell within Bengaluru’s territorial jurisdiction, the trial court was required to assess jurisdiction by reference to Section 20(a), rather than treating the property schedule as making the suit one concerning immovable property.

The court held that the schedule’s inclusion did not alter the nature of the claim or provide a basis to return the plaint. It therefore found the trial court’s jurisdictional decision misdirected and liable to be set aside.

The order allowing I.A. No. 5 was set aside, that application was dismissed, and the suit was restored to the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru, for trial there.

The plaintiff’s challenge to the order on I.A. No. 6 was not pressed.

The trial court was directed to expedite the suit, and the parties were directed to appear there on 30 November 2026.