MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J

( 1 ). IN the present suit filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree of specific performance and in the alternative, for a decree for recovery of the money that is paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, various issues were framed by this Court on the pleadings of the parties. One of the issues that was framed by order dated 28. 1. 2004 is whether this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. By order dated 28. 1. 2004, it was observed that the issue framed regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try this suit be tried as a preliminary issue as the said issue goes to the root of the matter. In terms of the aforesaid order, the counsel appearing for the parties advanced their arguments on the aforesaid preliminary issue framed by this Court regarding territorial jurisdiction.

( 2 ). THE plaintiffs filed the present suit with the contention that on 5. 6. 1987 the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase the farm land from the defendants and paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance. It is alleged that subsequently on 19. 11. 1987, the plaintiffs paid the balance consideration and asked the defendant to execute the sale deed and get it registered in favour of the plaintiffs. On 16. 7. 1988, the parties signed a purchase agreement in respect of the said farm land. Thereafter the plaintiffs visited the office of the defendant and requested the defendant to perform their obligation under the agreement. But it is alleged that the defendant has failed to and refused to perform its obligations under the agreement and, therefore, the present suit was filed contending, inter alia, that the agreement between the parties was signed in New Delhi where also the parties to the suit reside and work for gain. It is also stated that the plaintiffs made the payment to the defendant in New Delhi where the registered office of the defendant was also located at the relevant time. The defendant, however, has taken up a plea that the land, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid agreement is situated in Haryana which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.

( 3 ) THE relief that is sought for in the plaint is for a decree of specific performance of the purchase agreement dated 16. 7. 1988 executed between the parties and also for execution of the sale deed and handing over possession of the premises or in the alternative, for a decree directing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation for non-performance of the aforesaid obligations arising out of the purchase agreement. The copies of the purchase agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and receipts of the part consideration money are placed on record. The purchase agreement is shown to have been executed between the parties at New Delhi on 16. 7. 1988. There are several stipulations in the purchase agreement including certain general covenants which are set out in clause 14 of the said agreement. Sub clause (x) thereof states as follows "the Vendor having its registered office in New Delhi, the Delhi courts shall have jurisdiction in all matters arising out of the Agreement. " the consideration money was also received by the defendant in New Delhi and receipts thereof have been issued by the defendant from its New Delhi office where its registered office was located at the relevant time.

( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the defendant, however, submitted that to the facts and circumstances of the present case provisions of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable and, therefore, the suit should have been instituted at the place where the property of the agreement is situated. Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, submitted that to the facts and circumstances of the case provisions of Section 20 CPC would be applicable. According to him,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document