The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in adjudicating the termination of the development agreement and the obligations of the applicant under the agreement.

1. The applicant, shown as third party, has taken out this Chamber Summons against the parties to the suit as also other respondents who are shown as third party respondents. The Chamber Summons is for declaration that the termination of the development agreement dated 16th December, 2003, Power of Attorney dated 22nd May, 2002 and certain other documents is unreasonable, unenforceable and illegal, for appointment of Court Receiver for various directions and for injunction against private receiver appointed in the suit property.

2. The suit filed in 1961 came to be decreed under consent terms signed by the parties on 28th April, 2008. The defendant No.4 was appointed private receiver. He is one of the co-owners of the suit properties. He had to develop one of the suit properties. He had entered into an MOU with the Director of the applicant on 21st May, 2002 and a development agreement on 16th December, 2003 and executed a POA in his favour. The rights and obligations of the applicant would be under the aforesaid documents. The development agreement has been terminated under a notice dated 16th July, 2013.

3. The applicant is required to give certain flats, duly constructed, of specified areas to the owners of the suit property and their tenants in development. Under the agreement he is required to perform his obligations within certain specified periods. The periods have expired. The performance is incomplete. The agreement is terminated. The termination is challenged in the above Chamber Summons.

4. This is in a suit in which preliminary and final decrees have been passed upon settlement between the parties under certain terms. That decree would have to be executed. It is contended that the development agreement would essentially be in execution and hence the Chamber Summons is not maintainable as prayed. A separate Civil Suit would have to be filed upon payment of the necessary court fee for obtaining the reliefs sought in the Chamber Summons. The nature of the reliefs and the prayer of the Chamber Summons makes this rather apparent. Rule 121 of the High Court Original Side Rules is relied upon by the defendants in support of their contention that the Chamber Summons is not maintainable. There are 38 specified matters which can be disposed off by Judge in chambers as chamber work under Chapter IX thereof. The applicant would contend that his application would fall under clause 15, 16 and 25 of Rule 121 of the High Court Original Side Rules.

Rule 15 relates to applications in execution. Rule 16 relates to questions under Section 47 of the CPC. Rule 25 relates to applications by receiver for management and disposal of properties.

(a) Questions under clause 47 of the CPC are questions to be determined by the Court executing the decree under an execution application. None can be filed by the applicant.

(b) The applications under clause 25 are by receivers. The applicant is not a receiver. Defendant No.4 is the private receiver in this case.

(c) An application by third party is not contemplated under clause 25.

The applicant would contend that the application is for management of the property. The application is instead for declaration that a notice of termination is illegal and for reliefs for appointing Court Receiver and grant of certain injunctions. Such “management” would be in any suit. The aforesaid clauses upon which the applicant relied shows a misconceived application.

5. Order 21 of the CPC sets out the procedure for applications in execution. In such applications Chamber Summons may be taken out for necessary directions. The applicant is a third party as shown in the title of the Chamber Summons by the applicant. The applicant cannot execute the decree passed in the suit in favour of or against the parties to the suit.

6. It would stand to reason as has been contended on behalf of the respondents, who are parties to the suit, that the case of the applicant falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court an