PIYUSH COLONISERS LIMITED Vs. NARENDER AGGARWAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the order dated 4.9.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of the plaint on the ground of jurisdiction, was dismissed. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and presently having its registered office at A-16/B1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. The property in dispute is situated at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from alienating or selling the suit property for which advance of Rs. 2,50,000/- paid by him for each fiat and also from creating any further charge over the suit property in dispute. Further prayer was made for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to refund the booking amount of the aforesaid flat/advance registration booking along with interest in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) It is in the said suit that the petitioner-defendant filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of the plaint raising an objection that the Court at Faridabad does not have the jurisdiction to try the suit in terms of the provisions of Section 16 CPC. It was also stated therein that the Corporate office of the petitioner-company is at New Delhi and the property in question is situated at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). Mere residence of some of the Director of the company does not entitle the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to file the suit at Faridabad. The application having been rejected, the petitioner-defendant is before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed at Faridabad by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 only because he is resident of Faridabad and it was convenient for him to pursue the case there. In the present case, the property in dispute is situated at Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). The petitioner company is having its registered office at New Delhi and the booking amount was deposited by the plaintiff at New Delhi. No cause of action had accrued at Faridabad. As per Clause 26 of the agreement, it has been agreed upon between the parties that the court at Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction in case of any dispute. Plaintiff respondent No. 1 applied for two flats and submitted his application form accepting the basic terms and conditions of the allotment to the petitioner company. Therefore, as per the settled position of law, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Limited and another, 2005 7 SCC 791.