( 1 ) IN the present suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant the plaintiff has sought for a decree for specific performance of the contract in the following terms:

"pass a decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendant to sell/transfer the industrial plot bearing No. 20/6, Road No. 18, site No. 4, Sahibabad in favour of the plaintiff and directing the defendant to take all necessary steps for the transfer/sale of the industrial plot of land in favour of the plaintiff".

( 2 ) IN order to show that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit the plaintiff has stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint that this court has territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as the agreement was entered into between the parties in New Delhi and that the receipt was signed and accepted by the defendant at New Delhi and also as the defendant resides and works for gain within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus, the plaintiff claims that this court has territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit as per provision of Section 20 Civil Procedure Code. The suit instituted seeks for a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale/transfer of an immovable property situated at Sahibabad in the State of U. P. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree directing the defendant to take all necessary steps for the transfer / sale of the said industrial plot of land in favour of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THE defendants filed their written statement raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present suit on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the suit. It is stated in paragraph No. 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement that since the plaintiff is seeking determination of alleged right and alleged interest in the immovable property on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell, which is admittedly situated in Sahibabad , (U. P.), the suit for specific performance of contract is not maintainable in Delhi courts and the suit is required to be dismissed. It is also stated in the paragraph No. 13 of the written statement that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property, which is situated beyond the jurisdiction of this court. There could be no denial of the fact that the immovable property in question, of which the alleged agreement to sell was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant , is located at Sahibabad (U. P.) and, therefore, is situated out side the jurisdiction of this court.

( 4 ) IN the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, I have been called upon to decide the issue as to whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and/or whether the suit is not maintainable in this court for want of territorial jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff claims jurisdiction of this court on the basis of the provisions of Section 20 Civil Procedure Code, whereas according to the defendant, jurisdictional aspect in the present suit is guided by the provisions of Section 16 Civil Procedure Code. Section 16 provides that a suit is to be instituted where the subject matter is situated, when it states that subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits (a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits, (b) for the partition of immovable property, (c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property, (d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, (e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property, (f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. A proviso is , however,