Arijit Banerjee, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by the Hon’ble First Court whereby the Learned Judge was pleased to permanently stay the suit on the ground that the same is a suit for land and the land is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff filed the above suit praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs:-

“(a) The purported agreement dated 12th January, 2009 between the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 with regards to North Mill a copy whereof is contained in Annexure ‘C’ hereto is wrongful and illegal and the said purported agreement be adjudged null and void and directed to be delivered up and cancelled;

(b) Mandatory injunction directing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith restore and reconnect supply of water from the Hooghly river to the plaintiff through the pipe line and the water pump laid on the jetty servicing the North Mill;

(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves or through their servants, agents assigns or howsoever otherwise from in any way interfering with the right of the plaintiff to obtain supply of water from Hooghly river through the pipe line and the water pump laid on the jetty servicing the North Mill;

(d) Decree for Rs. 83,44,993.66 against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 as pleaded in paragraph 18 hereinabove;

(e) Interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 15% per annum;

(f) An enquiry be made into loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff and a money decree be passed against the defendant no. 2 for such sum as may be found upon such enquiry;”

The agreement dated 12th January, 2009 which has been assailed in prayer (a) of the plaint is an agreement for transfer of a particular mill described as North Mill by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no. 2.

The defendant no. 2 made an application for rejection of the plaint and/or for taking the plaint off the file and/or for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit was a ‘suit for land’ over which this Court had no territorial jurisdiction. In the said application it was stated, inter alia, as follows:-

“From a fair and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff is seeking adjudication of right, title and interest in and/or possession of land situate at jute mill situate at Bowreah outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

In such circumstances, the instant suit is a suit for land and land which is situate outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and as such, this Hon’ble Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the instant suit.

Further and/or in any event, the plaint relating to the instant suit does not disclose any cause of action. The scheme of Demerger as sanctioned by this Hon’ble Court and relied upon by the plaintiff in the plaint does not give any right to the plaintiff to lands in the possession of the defendant no. 2 and which form the subject matter of the agreement dated 24th March, 1988 forming Annexure “A” to the plaint as also the agreement dated 12th January, 2009 made by and between the defendant nos. 1 and 2.”

The plaintiff contested the application by filing affidavit-in-opposition.

Before the Hon’ble First Court the plaintiff was willing to abandon reliefs (b) and (c) claimed in the plaint to save the suit from being a ‘suit for land’. However, the plaintiff insisted on pursuing relief (a) which according to the plaintiff had nothing to do with any land. It was contended by the plaintiff that the relief as to the cancellation of the agreement of January 12, 2009 is founded on the plaintiff’s assertion that the document is an unstamped and unregistered writing.

The learned Judge in his judgment impugned herein held as follows:-

“Whatever may be said in the plaint and whatever denial may appear as to the nature of the suit, the test is in assessing the primary object of the suit.

For the plaintiff to be entitled to ev