( 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. REPORTE