Must leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be obtained where the suit properties are situate within the ordinary original jurisdiction?

No. A careful reading of Clause 12 indicates that for suits filed in respect of land or immovable property it is sufficient that such land or property is situate within the jurisdiction of the High Court for the Court to entertain the suit; it is only in other cases, where the cause of action is said to have arisen wholly or in part within the local limits, that leave has to be obtained. A formal leave application taken out only because some of the defendants were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction was therefore not even required, and the grant of such leave did not necessitate the suit being retained on the file of the High Court once the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court was enhanced and the suit properties were situate well within that Court's jurisdiction.

Letters Patent — Clause 12 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.21(2) — s.47 — Suits Valuation Act, 1887 — s.11 — Leave for suits for land — Transfer to the City Civil Court — Objection to pecuniary jurisdiction — Nullity and erroneous decree — Letters Patent — Clause 12 — Suits for land — Leave unnecessary where property situate within jurisdiction — Held: Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent leave is required only where the cause of action arose in part within the local limits. For suits for land it is sufficient that the property is situate within the ordinary original jurisdiction. (¶10, 11) Letters Patent — Clause 12 — Grant of leave — Transfer to City Civil Court — Held further: Grant of leave in respect of some of the defendants does not necessitate the suit being retained on the file of the High Court. Such a suit may be transferred to the City Civil Court on enhancement of that Court's pecuniary jurisdiction. (¶12, 13) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.21(2) — Pecuniary jurisdiction — Objection at the earliest possible opportunity — Held further: An objection as to the pecuniary limits of a Court's jurisdiction is not allowed unless taken at the earliest possible opportunity and there has been a consequent failure of justice. Prejudice under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act must be satisfied. (¶19, 23, 24) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.47 — Erroneous decree not a nullity — Held further: Only an objection to jurisdiction over the subject matter renders a decree a nullity, not one to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. An erroneous decree, which the Executing Court cannot travel behind, is not inexecutable. Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (¶29, 50, 51, 53)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of B. MOHANA v. LAKSHMINARAYANAN — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India