ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant-plaintiff herein has filed a suit for specific performance basing his claim on an Agreement dated 2nd November, 1975. The plaint was amended and the prayer for specific performance is set out thus :

"The plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff directing all or such of the defendants as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit to join in and execute a sale deed with respect to suit schedule property falling which the Court may execute the same and deliver vacant possession to the Plaintiff by removing or evicting the defendants and all persons claiming through them and their servants agents from the suit schedule property and remove any structure or constructions made by them or for such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and costs of the Suit (Amended as per orders in I.A. No. 259/91 dated 31.03.1992)".

A written statement was filed by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on 10th February, 1982 in para 1 of which they raised the plea that the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit inasmuch as the property of which specific performance is sought is in Medak District.

4. On this preliminary issue, the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 8th September, 1986 held that the relief of specific performance could be entirely obtained through personal obedience of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and since defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in Hyderabad (over which the Hyderabad Court had jurisdiction) therefore there is territorial jurisdiction. Against this order, a Revision Petition was preferred, which was also dismissed on 26th September, 1986.

5. After these orders were passed, the Trial Court ultimately decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 28th June, 1996 in which this preliminary issue was again adverted to and it was stated this has already been decided as a preliminary issue finally.

6. In the first appeal against the decree, it was again contended that there is no territorial jurisdiction in the Court at Hyderabad inasmuch as the Supreme Court Judgment had now intervened, which is reported in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. And Another, (2005)7 SCC 791.This judgment, after considering Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that :

"15. Now, Sections 15 to 20 of the Code contain detailed provisions relating to jurisdiction of courts. They regulate forum for institution of suits. They deal with the matters of domestic concern and provide for the multitude of suits which can be brought in different courts. Section 15 requires the suitor to institute a suit in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Section 16 enacts that the suits for recovery of immovable property, or for partition of immovable property, or for foreclosure, sale or redemption of mortgage property, or for determination of any other right or interest in immovable property, or for compensation for wrong to immovable property shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. Proviso to Section 16 declares that where the relief sought can be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant, the suit can be instituted either in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate or in the court where the defendant actually or voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. Section 17 supplements Section 16 and is virtually another proviso to that section. It deals with those cases where immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of different courts. Section 18 applies where local limits of jurisdiction of different courts is uncertain. Section 19 is a special provision and applies to suits for compensation for wrongs to a person or