UTTAM INTERNATIONAL Vs. JOGENDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant the plaintiff has sought for a decree for specific performance of the contract in the following terms:

(2.) In order to show that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit the plaintiff has stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint that this court has territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as the agreement was entered into between the parties in New Delhi and that the receipt was signed and accepted by the defendant at New Delhi and also as the defendant resides and works for gain within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, the plaintiff claims that this court has territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit as per provision of Section 20 Civil Procedure Code. The suit instituted seeks for a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale/transfer of an immovable property situated at Sahibabad in the State of U.P. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree directing the defendant to take all necessary steps for the transfer / sale of the said industrial plot of land in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present suit on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the suit. It is stated in paragraph No.3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement that since the plaintiff is seeking determination of alleged right and alleged interest in the immovable property on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell, which is admittedly situated in Sahibabad , (U.P.), the suit for specific performance of contract is not maintainable in Delhi courts and the suit is required to be dismissed. It is also stated in the paragraph No.13 of the written statement that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, which is situated beyond the jurisdiction of this court. There could be no denial of the fact that the immovable property in question, of which the alleged agreement to sell was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant , is located at Sahibabad (U.P.) and, therefore, is situated out side the jurisdiction of this court.