G.S. Patel, J.

The Chamber Summons seeks revocation of leave that I granted on 9th October 2018 to the Plaintiff under Clause XII of the Letters Patent of this Court. I am not commenting on the accuracy or otherwise of the averments in the Leave Petition or even in the plaint.

2. The submission from Defendant No. 4, the Applicant in the Chamber Summons, is that, on a plain reading, the suit is one for specific performance of a contract but combined with the prayer for delivery of possession of immovable property. That immovable property is situated wholly outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, having regard to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat & Anr, (2001) 7 SCC 698 and Excel Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. & Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 219 and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in DG Kotak & Anr. V. Rajeshkumar alias Rajas R Doshi & Ors., (2012) 3 MhLJ 275 this is a 'suit for land' within the meaning of Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Therefore, no leave could ever have been granted.

3. Clause XII of the Letters Patent read thus:

"XII. Original jurisdiction as to suits. - And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court or if the Defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business, or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, or the Bombay City Civil Court."

4. The only question is whether a Suit that seeks specific performance and combines a prayer for decree for specific performance with a prayer for delivery of possession of immovable property is a suit for land. If it is, then it falls within the first part of Clause XII. This means, necessarily, that if the land is outside the jurisdiction of this Court then no leave can be granted. The decisions referred to above are abundantly clear.

5. In Adcon Electronics, immovable property at Indore (land and a building) were the subject of sale agreement between the parties to the suit. There followed a memorandum, also in regard to this property. Disputes arose. The purchasers brought suit in the Bombay High Court for specific performance of the agreement and memorandum. The plaint did not seek possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs obtained leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. The defendants filed a Chamber Summons for revocation of that leave. A single judge dismissed that Chamber Summons. An appeal failed. The defendants approached the Supreme Court, and this resulted in the Adcon Electronics decision. Analyzing, Clause XII, the Supreme Court said, first:

9. Thus, it is clear that under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction will have power to receive, try and determine:

(1) suits for land or other immovable property if such property is situated within the local limits of original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (2) all other cases (a) if the cause of action has arisen wholly within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; (b) if prior leave of the Court has been obtained and the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (c) if the defendant dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within s