Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069462025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/49/2025 DADUL TALUKDAR AND ANR S/O LT. RAJEN TALUKDAR, R/O BISHNU RABHA PATH, DHOPALIA, P.O SAWKUCHI, JYOTIKUCHI, GUWAHATI- 781034, KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN), ASSAM 2: DAISY DAS W/O GUNINDRA CH. DAS D/O LT. RAJEN TALUKDAR R/O BISHNU RABHA PATH DHOPALIA P.O SAWKUCHI JYOTIKUCHI GUWAHATI- 781034 KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN) ASSA VERSUS SMTI. ANANNYA BHATTACHARJEE W/O LT. RUPAM TALUKDAR, R/O BISHNU RABHA PATH, JYOTIKUCHI, DHOPALIA, P.O SAWKUCHI, GUWAHATI- 781034, KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN), ASSAM AND HOUSE NO 16 MILANPUR, P.O REHABARI, P.S PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-781008, KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN), ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Kalita, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) has been invoked to challenge the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 743/2023 whereby the application so filed for dismissal of the suit on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction being Petition No. 4848/2024 was rejected. 3. This Court has duly perused the copy of the plaint which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the application. From a perusal of the plaint, it is seen that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 reside within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. Further to that, it is also taken note of that out of the three properties wherein partitions have been sought for one of the properties, i.e. Schedule-A property is located within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. 4. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Section 16 of the Code wherein it is stipulated, amongst others, that in respect to a suit for partition of an immovable property, it shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. The proviso to the said Section 16 of the Code further stipulates that a Page No.# 3/4 suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant, may where the relief sought for can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. 5. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Section 17 of the Code which stipulates that where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, an immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, any portion of the property is situated. Taking into account the provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of the Code, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed for dismissal of the suit for want of territorial jurisdiction. 6. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Shivnarayan (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Maniklal (Dead) through Lrs. and Others reported in (2020) 11 SCC 629. It is relevant to take note of that the observations and the findings so arrived at in the said judgment has no relevance to the present issue inasmuch as the said judgment was passed in relation to the misjoinder of causes of action and not in respect to where the jurisdiction would lie when there are two properties situated in two different districts in a case of a partition suit. 7. Taking into account the provision of Sections 16 and 17 of the Code, Page No.# 4/4 this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order, for which, the instant petition stands dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant