- (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2014 passed by the Ld. First Court in GA No. 1673 of 2014 (CS No. 186 of 2014). By the impugned judgment and order the Ld. Judge returned the plaint of the suit on the ground that the suit was a suit for land and the land being admittedly situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit. Relevant portion of the Ld. Judge's order is extracted below: "The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for injunction in relation to immovable properties that are admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In deciding the prayers in the suit an adjudication has to be made to the right title and interest of the parties in respect of immovable properties that are admittedly situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the relief, if granted in favour of the plaintiff, would be in relation to an immovable property which is admittedly situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the subject matter of the suit is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and is an immovable property, it is a suit for land and accordingly, the plaint is returned to the plaintiff in order to enable the plaintiff to present the plaint before the appropriate court having jurisdiction upon furnishing a xerox copy of the plaint in the department concerned. The plaint is returned accordingly. This suit shall not be shown as pending before this Court. In view of the aforesaid the application being GA 1586 stands dismissed. This dismissal is only on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff shall be entitled to seek similar reliefs before the appropriate forum on the self-same cause of action."
(2.) Being aggrieved the plaintiffs/appellants are before us. Contention of the appellants:
(3.) Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Counsel, vehemently argued that the suit was not a suit for land. It was contended that a shareholder's agreement dated 16th October, 2007 was entered into by and between the parties for development of a project called Bonhooghly project. Since the respondent no. 1 was threatening to act in breach of the said agreement, the appellants had filed the suit to restrain the respondent no. 1 from acting in derogation of the said agreement. No relief was claimed in respect of the land on which the Bonhooghly project was proposed to be developed. Neither possession of the land was prayed for nor the subjectmatter of the suit involved adjudication of right, title or interest in respect of such land. The relief sought was injunction in personam against the defendant no. 1 from taking any steps for implementation or development of the Bonhooghly project in violation of the agreement dated 16th October, 2007. In this connection, Ld. Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd.-vs.-Daulat & Anr., 2001 7 SCC 698. Reliance was placed on paragraph 15 of the said judgment which is set out hereunder:- "From the above discussion it follows that a 'suit for land' is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. Whether a suit is a 'suit for land' or not has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a 'suit for land'. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Mahajan, J. in Moolji Jaitha case.";