1) since the plaint has been returned for presentation before apporpitae court the suit would not be barred by limitation

2) Order VII Rule 10 speaks of a situation where either the territorial or the pecuniary Jurisdiction of that particular Court is lacking and that such suit is required to be filed in a different court to which the Code of Civil Procedure applies having Jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

3) On returning a plaint the Judge shall endorse thereon the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it, and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it.

4) it would not be regarded as fresh suit but continuation suit

5) suit is not barred by limitation

1. I am not sure what does this 'continuation suit' mean? The decree of court even if wrong is binding upon the aprties if it is not set aside by any higher court.

2. It is valid since for the last 3 years no challenge has been made agaisnt it and hence it attains finality. It is an irregular order but not illegal order.

3. There is no continuation suit recognised in law of the land. This suit has no value at all.

Where a Court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction, non est.

2) you have good chances of winning the case

1) In Sarup Singh and another vs. Union of India and another, (2011) 11 SCC 198, the Supreme Court has held that if decree is found to be a nullity, the same can be challenged and interfered with at any subsequent stage say, at the execution stage or even in a collateral proceeding. This is in view of the fact that if a particular court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or an order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction and the same is non-est and void ab initio. The aforesaid position is well settled and not open for any dispute as the defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very root and authority of the court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the parties.

2) your registry is valid . the interim order passed in 1996 can be challenged in collateral proceedings

QUESTION 1: The Petitioner Jeweller went to the wrong court with no jurisdiction and after more than 3 years he filed a ‘continuation suit’ in proper court (rangareddy court). SO CAN THIS SUIT BE REGARDED AS A CONTINUATION SUIT OR THIS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS FRESH SUIT?

Though the court which returned the suit due to non maintainability owing to the jurisdictional point, it was mentioned in the order that this may be filed in the appropriate court, thus it clearly indicates that the plaintiff approached the court or initiated due process of law within the time limit, hence this continuation suit is maintainable.

QUESTION 2: Is there any value of the COURT ORDER given by the court with NO Jurisdiction.

The orders passed by the court about this is maintainable since that court has no power to try this case.

QUESTION 3: Petitioner agreement date is March 1996, filed case in hyderabad city civil court in July 1996, filed case in proper court in September 1999 as a continuation suit. So IS THIS SUIT FILED IN PPOPER COURT BARRED BY LIMITATION? AS ALREADY IT IS MORE THAN 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF AGREEMENT.

Since the plaintiff approached court within the time, it cannot be considered as barred by limitation.

Q1) Does the interim order or suit pendency effect the registration done by D2 and D3? As I have read that ANY ORDER GIVEN BY COURT WHICH LACKS JURISDICTION IS NULL. So IS MY REGISTRY VALID OR NOT? As I HAVE DONE THE REGISTRY IN THE PERIOD WHEN THIS SUIT WAS IN THE COURT WITHOUT TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

What D2 has done or how he executed the sale deed on your name subsequently is not a matter of concern with the court which was handling this case filed by the plaintiff earlier. The matter was found not to be within its jurisdiction, hence it returned the suit advising the plaintiff to file it in appropriate court, hence the suit is not barred by limitation while it has been represented before the appropriate court.

The time taken with the previous court can be considered as due process of law only and it cannot be construed as fault of the plaintiff.

the merits of the case will depend on the trial proceedings.

Q2)I(D3) have Patta Pass book, Registry, Position of the land, Patta pass book and Registry Document of D2, exparty order copy of proper court of D2. I don’t have original Sale deed of “D1” and Petitioner has that. So whose chances of winning the case is more? WHAT ARE MY CHANCES?

The exparte decree obtained by D2 against D1 is his personal case and this is not binding on the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's case is different to that of the D2's case.

Whatever defence D2 has he has to argue and present the same before the court .

He cannot claim excuse based on his exparte order in his favor.

Does the interim order or suit pendency in the court without territorial jurisdiction effect the registration done by D2 and D3

Interim order would have been vacated and it would not have continued till the end or till the time the original court returned the suit. However the registry done by the D2 subsequently has no impact on this.

So IS MY REGISTRY VALID OR NOT? As I HAVE DONE THE REGISTRY IN THE PERIOD WHEN THIS SUIT BETWEEN D1 AND PETITIONER WAS IN THE COURT WITHOUT TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

The execution of sale deed ion your favor during lis pendense or while a litigation is pending against this property is actually invalid, but since it has been done now, you have defend your interests properly.

Is my registry valid or not? And can you please provide some citation or ruling of the court in my favour which shows that my registry is valid.

See the above answer.

In a specific performance suit, the plaintiff shall pay the balance amount with the court only after a judgment is passed to that effect, he cannot voluntarily deposit the same without court permitting him to do so, hence there is no legal infirmity in it.

If the GPA had executed the sale deed on behalf of the principal, then the same is maintainable. The plaintiff need not issue notice to the principal. The notice to the GPA is valid and legal.

perusal of the said statutory provision would show that in view of Section 16 (c) of the said Act, it is necessary to aver and prove by the plaintiff that he has performed and has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. The explanation (i) further clarifies that it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually deposit in Court any money. It would follow from a reading of the said statutory provisions that there is no statutory requirement under the Specific Relief Act to claim Specific Performance for the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration when filing a suit pertaining to specific performance of an agreement pertaining to an immovable property.

21. The proposition that follows from the above case law is that it is not in every case that before grant of injunction in a suit for specific performance of immovable property a direction has to be passed to the plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the Court is of the view that on the facts equities demand, plaintiff would be directed to deposit the balance sale consideration as provided in explanation (i) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act before granting interim orders to the plaintiff.