( 1 ) THIS APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT under ORDER VII RULE 11 [a] AND [d] READ WITH SECTION 151 of THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (IN SHORT THE `cpc ) seeks REJECTION OF THE PLAINT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT claims THAT THE SUIT IS BARRED BY `law ON THE GROUND that THE PARTIES THOUGH MARRIED IN INDIA UNDER HINDU LAW were SETTLED IN DUBAI WHERE THERE WERE SOME SETTLEMENT terms ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND CONSEQUENTLY the PLAINT DESERVES TO BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD.

( 2 ) THE DEFENDANT, WHO HAS TAKEN THESE PLEAS IN HIS written STATEMENT HAS NEVERTHELESS PRESSED THIS application FOR DECISION AND IS SEEKING THE DISMISSAL OF the SUIT ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING BARRED BY `law . FOR this PURPOSE, MR. NANDA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL, APPEARING on BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT/applicant HAS SUBMITTED THAT the SECTION 1 and 2 OF THE HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE act, 1956 (IN SHORT THE `hama ) INDICATE THAT THE ACT applies TO WHOLE OF INDIA AND, THEREFORE, ITS OPERATION cannot TRAVEL BEYOND INDIA AND APPLY TO A CAUSE OF ACTION which HAS ARISEN IN DUBAI. HE HAS RELIED UPON A JUDGMENT of THE HON ble SUPREME COURT IN BADAT and CO. VS EAST INDIA trading CO. REPORTED AS 1964 (4) SCR @ P. 19 AND IN particular HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH AT page 60 WHEREIN CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE hon ble SUPREME COURT AS UNDER:-

". . . . . WHEN HE SUES UPON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION, NO doubt, THE COURT WITHIN WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CAUSE OF action AROSE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT. BUT, IF ONE THE OTHER HAND, HE CHOOSES TO SUE UPON THE judgment, HE CANNOT FOUND THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION because ONCE HE CHOOSES TO REST HIMSELF ON THE JUDGMENT obtained BY HIM IN A FOREIGN COURT, THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF action WILL HAVE NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER EVEN THOUGH IT may NOT HAVE MERGED IN THAT JUDGMENT. "i AM UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE RELEVANCE OF THE aforesaid JUDGMENT OF THE HON ble SUPREME COURT IN THE present PROCEEDINGS UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC. IN ANY event THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTING HER CLAIM ON THE judgment OF A FOREIGN COURT.

( 3 ) THE FACTS MAY BE NOTED IN BRIEF. THE PLAINTIFF and THE DEFENDANT MARRIED IN INDIA AND WERE LATER ON settled IN DUBAI. IN JANUARY, 1999 CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS took PLACE IN DUBAI WHICH WERE FILED BY THE defendant/husband ORIGINALLY UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT which IN APRIL, 1999 WERE CONVERTED TO A SHARIAT proceedings UPON THE CONVERSION OF THE DEFENDANT/husband to ISLAM DURING SUCH PROCEEDINGS.

( 4 ) THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/applicant, shri RAJIV NANDA, WHO HAS MOVED THIS APPLICATION UNDER order VII RULE 11 [a] AND [d] CPC, HAS CONTENDED vehemently THAT THE OPERATION OF SECTION 1 SUB-SECTION (2) OF THE HAMA CANNOT APPLY BEYOND INDIA AND THE CAUSE of ACTION HAVING ARISEN BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL jurisdiction NOT ONLY OF THIS COURT BUT IN FACT THIS country, THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE suit. THE POSITION OF LAW IN RELATION TO ORDER VII RULE 11 IS WELL SETTLED AND HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON ble supreme COURT IN SALEEM BHAI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported AS AIR 2003 SC 759 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:-

" 9. A PERUSAL OF O. VII, R 11 C. P. C. MAKES IT CLEAR THAT the RELEVANT FACTS WHICH NEED TO BE LOOKED INTO FOR deciding AN APPLICATION THEREUNDER ARE THE AVERMENTS IN the PLAINT. THE TRIAL COURT CAN EXERCISE THE POWER UNDER or VII R 11 C. P. C. AT ANY STAGE OF THE SUIT BEFORE registering THE PLAINT OR AFTER ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE defendant AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL. FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECIDING AN APPLICATION UNDER CLS (A) and (D) OF R. 11 OF O. VII, C. P. C. , THE AVERMENTS IN THE plaint ARE GERMANE: THE PLEAS TAKEN BY THE DEFENDANT IN the WRITTEN STATEMENT WOULD BE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AT THAT stage, THEREFORE, A DIRECTION TO FILE THE WRITTEN statement WITHOUT DECIDING THE APPLICATION UNDER O. 7 R. 11, C. P. C. CANNOT BUT BE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY TOUCHING the EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE TRIAL COURT. THE order