INDER SHARMA Vs. VIKAS NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Holding that the Courts at Delhi lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court vide impugned order dated September 16, 2013 the plaint has been directed to be returned for being presented to the Court having jurisdiction, which Court has not been identified by the learned Single Judge, but has to be the City Civil Court in Gurgaon, Haryana, for the reason the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that since the decree as per prayer (c) pertaining to the receipt dated August 28, 2009 impinged upon property No.A-119, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Courts at Delhi would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. In passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has placed emphasis on prayer (c) made in the plaint and has inferred therefrom that the relief prayed directly relates to the determination of a right to or interest in immovable property. The oral plea by the plaintiff/appellant to give up relief (c) has been negated in paragraph 8 of the impugned order and we quote :

(2.) Case of appellant Inder Sharma as per the plaint instituted by him is that he was the owner in possession of property bearing No.A-118, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana and that in August, 2008 Vikas Nagpal, the defendant, expressed a desire to purchase the property from him and to show his bona-fides handed over Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as token money receipt whereof was acknowledged by him in writing on August 28, 2009 at New Delhi at the Branch Office of a company NU-TECH India Ltd. B-14A, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019. As per Inder Sharma the agreed sale consideration was Rs. 6,78,13,200/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy Eight Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Two Hundred only) and it was expressly agreed that balance sale consideration in sum of Rs. 6,73,13,200/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy Three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Two Hundred only) would be paid within 30 days because he required money urgently, and thus time was of the essence of the contract. He had needed at least Rs. 2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Twenty Five Lakhs only) most urgently because in his capacity as Managing Director of a company he had subscribed to Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) warrants to be converted into equity shares on a preferential basis pursuant to an Extra Ordinary General meeting of the company held on September 30, 2009 entitling him to so do. He pleaded that SEBI Regulation 77, required him to pay Rs. 2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Twenty Five Lakhs only) immediately. He pleaded that he was an allottee of an apartment No.907B at a residential complex called Magnolias being developed by Delhi Lease & Finance Ltd. and he had made a request for the allotment to be changed to another apartment being No.708B which request was accepted and Delhi Lease & Finance Ltd. had required him to pay Rs. 3,65,77,500.65 (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Paisa Sixty Five only) towards further sale consideration. He pleaded that repeated requests made by him to Vikas Nagpal to pay the balance sale consideration were not heeded to by him. Making a reference to the property in question being provided as a collateral security to the State Bank of India against credit facility he pleaded that there was no charge created on the property. Pleading further that firstly the receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by him was a pre-condition to enter into a sale agreement and there was no concluded contract between the parties he pleaded in the alternative that Vikas Nagpal was in breach. He pleaded that by threatening to lodge criminal proceedings against him, Vikas Nagpal had caused damage to him for which he needs to be compensated Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only). Pleading territorial jurisdiction on the fact that the receipt dated August 28, 2009 was executed at Delhi and additionally that Vikas Nagpal resided at Delhi, five reliefs were made as under:-

(3.) We must firstly note that the appeal has wrongly been filed by the appellant as a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and unfortunately for him, the counsel for the appellant had made him pay ad valorem court fee as was paid in the suit. The order in question is not a decree inasmuch as it has directed return of the plaint and has to be treated as an order in exercise of the power of the Court under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence an appeal would lie against the order as per Order XLIII Rule 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.