The Bombay High Court has held that leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not required for instituting a suit in the High Court’s original civil jurisdiction when the case falls under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), i.e., for compensation for wrongs done to a person or movable property. The Court clarified that Clause 12 applies only to suits covered under Sections 16, 17, and 20 CPC, whose applicability to the High Court is expressly excluded by Section 120 CPC.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered this ruling while hearing a defamation suit against the defendants for publishing allegedly defamatory content on social media platforms. The defendants objected to the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the defamatory material was uploaded in Pune and Aurangabad, and therefore, the plaintiff was required to obtain leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, since the cause of action allegedly arose outside Mumbai.
The Court examined the interplay between Section 19 CPC and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, observing that while Clause 12 governs suits relating to immovable property and other suits under Sections 16, 17, and 20 CPC, it does not specifically deal with suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables filed under the original civil jurisdiction of a High Court, which are governed by Section 19 CPC. It observed:
“… applicability of Section 19 of the Code has not been excluded to the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction under Section 120 of the Code. Therefore, on plain reading of provisions of Section 120 of the Code, jurisdiction of even High Court to decide suit for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property will have to be decided in accordance with provisions of Section 19 of the Code and not in accordance with Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.”
The Court noted that while Clause 12 of the Letters Patent covers ‘suits relating to land and properties’ and ‘other suits’, no special provision is made therein to deal with the jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to suits for compensation for wrongs done to the person or to movable property. It was observed that Section 120 of the Code seeks to retain more wider and beneficial provision under Section 19 for application to the High Court dealing with suits in its original civil jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that the Legislature has consciously not excluded applicability of provisions of Section 19 of the Code in relation to suits filed on original civil jurisdiction of the High Court; therefore, it would be impermissible hold that suits for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property would be covered by the expression ‘in all other cases’ used in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the plaintiff’s reputation was allegedly harmed in Mumbai, where the Waqf Board’s office is located and the defamatory content was accessible. Therefore, it held that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction under Section 19 CPC and that no leave under Clause 12 was necessary.
The objection to jurisdiction was accordingly dismissed, and the matter was listed for further hearing on the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction.
Case Title: Sameer Gulamnabi Kazi v. Ruhinaz Shakil Shaikh & Ors. [IA (Lodg.) No. 31487 of 2025 in Suit (Lodg.) No. 31483 of 2025]