Judgment

C.K. Thakker, J.—This interlocutory application is filed by the applicant/appellant in a disposed of appeal. The applicant was the original plaintiff who instituted a suit on the Original Side of the High Court of Delhi for declaration, for specific performance of agreement, for possession of property and for permanent injunction. The suit was filed in 1988. Written statement was filed by the defendants-respondents in 1989 contesting the claim of the plaintiff on merits but without raising any objection as to jurisdiction of the Court. The jurisdiction of the Court was ‘admitted’. The suit was then transferred to District Court, Delhi in 1993. In 1997, issues were framed which did not include issue as to jurisdiction of the Court as it was not disputed by the defendants. After more than eight years of filing of the written statement, however, an application was filed by the defendants under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) seeking an amendment in the written statement by raising an objection as to jurisdiction of the Court. It was contended that the suit was for recovery of immovable property situated in Gurgaon District. Under Section 16 of the Code, such a suit for recovery of property could only be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property was situated. Since the property was in Gurgaon, Delhi Court had no jurisdiction. The said application was allowed in spite of objection by the plaintiff.

On the basis of the amended written statement, an additional issue was framed by the trial Court as to the jurisdiction of Delhi Court to entertain and try the suit. After hearing the parties, the trial Court held that the suit was covered by Clause (d) of the Section 16 of the Code and Delhi Court had no jurisdiction as the property was situated at Gurgaon. Accordingly, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court. The said order was confirmed by the High Court as well as by this Court. (See Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr.; (2005) 7 SCC 791).

2. In the present application, it is stated by the applicant that when he approached this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi, notice was issued on December 6, 1999 and status quo was ordered to be maintained. On April 17, 2000, leave was granted and the operation of the judgment of the High Court was stayed. The Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi was allowed to proceed with the suit. It was, however, stated that the Court would not deliver judgment ‘until further orders’. According to the applicant, in pursuance of the said order, the trial Court proceeded with the suit, pleadings were completed by the parties, evidence was led and the matter was ready for final arguments and for disposal. It is further stated that an order was passed by the District Court on April 11, 2005 declaring that the defendants’ evidence was closed but since the judgment could not be pronounced in the light of direction issued by this Court on April 17, 2000, the suit was adjourned sine die. This Court finally decided the appeal and delivered the judgment on September 26, 2005 confirming the order passed by the trial Court as well as by the High Court. According to the applicant, now the suit will have to be tried and decided by the Gurgaon Court. Since 17 years have passed from the institution of the suit and the pleadings are complete, evidence is recorded and the arguments are over, this Court may direct the Gurgaon Court to take up the suit from the stage at which it stands transferred and to decide it expeditiously.

3. The application is resisted by the respondent by filing a counter. It is contended that the application is not maintainable as it is misconceived. According to the respondent, in the guise of interim application, the appellant is seeking review of the judgment of this Court. Such a prayer was made when the app