Dr. M. K. Sharma, J.

( 1 ) THE present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for a decree for specific performance of contract in respect of an apartment in NEELANCHAL APARTMENTS, Economy Type III, Pine Gardens, Nainital, developed by the defendants, together with the rights to the use of all common passages, entrances, terrace and any other common facilities and easements.

( 2 ) IN order to show and establish that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit it is stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and also because the defendant resides and carries on business in Delhi. Thus according to the plaintiff this court has territorial jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the cause of action for the suit has arisen in Delhi and also because the defendant resides and carries on business in Delhi.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed a written statement in this court contending inter alia that this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit as the subject matter of the suit is situate at Nainital, U. P. and therefore, section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and not the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant also filed an application in this court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that since this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit the plaint is liable to be rejected.

( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties I am called upon to decide as to whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit, on which I heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the prosions of section 20 would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as according to him the said provision is an exception to the provisions of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the execution of the sale deed is yet to take place in the present case and therefore, the relief for possession cannot be prayed and/or cannot be given at this stage and thus the present suit cannot be said to be a suit for relief for possession and the suit is merely a suit for specifically enforcing a contract and therefore, the provisions of section 20 would be applicable. He further submitted that even assuming that the provisions of section 16 are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case would be guided by the proviso of Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code as the relief as sought for herein could be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant and thus such a suit could be instituted where cause of action either in whole or in part arises or whether the defendant resides and/or carries on business. In support of his submission the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Babu Lal Vs. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal; AIR 1982 SC 818, and the un-reported decision of this court in G. S. Kohli and Others Vs. Mrs. Raj Rani Vijh and others, in Suit No. 187/1989 disposed of on 6. 7. 1992.

( 6 ) COUNSEL appearing for the defendant however, submitted that the present suit is governed by the provisions of Section 16 so far territorial jurisdiction aspect is concerned. He submitted that as the immovable property in question is situate at Nainital in the State of U. P. which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court, this court is not empowered and does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Lal s case (supra) and Panchanan Mondal Vs. Arapada M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document