( 1 ) THE revision petitioner was the plaintiff in S. No. 191/1995 and the respondents were the defendants therein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for Specific performance in respect of Plot No. B-ll, Rampuri Colony, Ghaziabad. According to the plaintiff the defendants had agreed to transfer the said plot to the plaintiff and had delivered physical possession of the said plot to the plaintiff but the defendants neglected to execute the sale deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the plaintiff. The prayer in the suit was for directing the defendants to execute and get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid plot. The defendants are limited companies having their registered office at New Delhi. They are carrying on their business in Delhi.

( 2 ) ON the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the. parties issues were framed the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi in the suit. One of the issues was whether the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The said issue was treated as preliminary issue.

( 3 ) DDCNDANT No. 1 contended that the suit was in respect of the property B-ll, Rampuri Colony, Ghaziabad, (U. P.) and, therefore the Civil Judge, Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff contended that defendants 1 and 2 had their registered office in Delhi and were carrying on their business in Delhi and that the prayer in the suit was only for directing them to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and hence the Civil Judge, Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Civil Judge held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. Against the order of the learned Civil Judge the plaintiff filed appeal RCA 631/1996 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. The learned Senior Civil Judge also held that the Civil Court in Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. However, the learned Senior Civil Judge observed that the suit should not have been dismissed and that the plaint should have been returned under Order VII, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. The case was remanded to the trial court for proceeding under Order VII Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Senior Civil Judge the petitioner filed this revision petition. While issuing notice to the respondents this Court had passed an interim order, on 7. 4. 1997 that the impugned order should not be given effect to. The interim order has been continuing in force.

( 4 ) HAVING considered the materials placed on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I find that the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court erred in holding that the Civil Court in Delhi did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Both the Courts relied on the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But both the Courts failed to correctly understand the proviso to Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. and to apply the said proviso to the facts of this case. For convenience Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code is extracted below:-

16. 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 situate:

PROVIDED that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation f