Jurisdiction over immovable property cannot be altered by agreement; the local court where the property is situated retains jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. Arising out of the rejection of the plaint by allowing the application filed by the defendants-respondents under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the “CPC”) maintaining an objection of jurisdiction of court in terms of Clause 23 of the Plot Buyers’ Agreement, the present appeal has been filed.

3. The appellants filed a suit¹[C.S. No. 2489 of 2016] in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal (“Trial Court”) seeking declaration, rendition of accounts, mandatory and permanent injunction with respect to the Community Centre of Alpha International City, Sector 28-29, Karnal situated within a residential area, seeking declaration that the Community Center cannot be leased out to third party for commercial purpose by the defendants with other ancillary reliefs before the Trial Court.

4. The defendants moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, inter-alia, raising an objection that in terms of Clause 23 of the agreement dated 24.02.2009 the Courts at New Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction in the matters arising out of, touching and/or concerning the agreement regardless of the place of execution. On filing reply by the appellants, the application was rejected by that Court vide order dated 31.01.2017. The defendants preferred Civil Revision No. 1105 of 2017 which was allowed in part and vide order dated 15.02.2017. The High Court remitted the matter to Trial Court for deciding the application afresh.

5. Learned Trial Court considered the submissions afresh, again rejected the application, vide order dated 19.04.2017 inter-alia, on the pretext that territorial jurisdiction of the Court cannot be ousted in lieu of the clause in agreement, in particular, when the subject matter is the immoveable property situated in Karnal and the cause to sue arose there. The Trial Court observed that Karnal Court does have jurisdiction to maintain the suit.

6. Being dissatisfied, the defendants preferred Civil Revision bearing Nos. 3122 of 2017 and 3705 of 2017 which were decided by the common impugned order dated 27.11.2018 allowing the application and directed to reject the plaint setting aside the order of the Trial Court. The present appeal is against the said judgment preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants.

7. Learned appellants’ counsel Ms. Anjali Sharma, contends that in a suit for declaration, rendition of accounts and mandatory and permanent injunction of an immoveable property situated in Sector 28-29, Karnal, jurisdiction lies with the Courts at Karnal. As per Section 16(d) of the CPC, suit for determination of any other right or interest in the immoveable property ought to be entertained by the Court where the immoveable property is situated irrespective of the clause in the agreement. She further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for declaration of the rights between the parties to the immoveable property cannot be taken away by virtue of an agreement from the Court at Karnal to Delhi, in particular, when the immoveable property or part thereof is not situated in Delhi. For buttressing the contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 791]. It is argued that in the impugned judgment, Court relied upon the case of Swastik Gases Private Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [(2013) 9 SCC 32], but the said case does not deal with the case of an immoveable property and is based on an agreement regarding business transaction. It is urged that where the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter, by virtue of a clause in an agreement, conferment of the jurisdiction to such Court in a suit related to immoveable property is not permissible.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made the submissions and supported the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned order. He placed reliance heavily on the judgment relied by