A Court cannot derive jurisdiction in respect of a matter in respect of which otherwise the said Court does not have jurisdiction merely because the parties have agreed to vest jurisdiction on the said Court.

( 1 ) THE present revision petition is directed against the order dated 25. 5. 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 1036/94 holding that the Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and directing for return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted a suit praying for a decree for specific performance of the contract of agreement to sell entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. In the said suit it was stated that the plaintiff entered into a plot buyer s agreement in the prescribed form on 14th August, 1985 with defendant No. 1 pursuant to which the plaintiff was allotted a residential plot of land measuring 264 sq. mtrs. in the residential colony of DLF Qutab Enclave Complex, Gurgaon, by the defendant No. 1. It is also alleged that in terms of the aforesaid allotment the petitioner/plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs. 12,974. 00 to the defendant No. 1. It was also alleged that subsequently, however, defendant No. 1 wilfully cancelled/withdrew the contract dated 14. 8. 1995 and the validity of the said action was challenged in the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendants and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties five issues were framed. At that stage, however, no issue with regard to want of territorial jurisdiction was raised or framed. Subsequently, however, an amended written statement was taken on record which an issue relating to territorial jurisdiction was also framed by the Court in the following manner:

1. Whether Delhi Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

( 4 ) THE aforesaid issue was taken up as a preliminary issue and on the said issue parties were heard. The Additional District Judge held that the Delhi Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid suit and issued a direction for return of the plaint to the plaintiff to enable him to file the same before the proper Court. The aforesaid findings and the decision of the Trial Court are challenged in this revision petition on which I have heard the Counsel appearing for the parties.

( 5 ) MR. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner subtted that the aforesaid agreement in respect of which decree for specific performance of the contract, has been sought for was arrived at Delhi. He also relied upon the various-clauses of the said agreement which in specific terms state that the aforesaid agreement has been entered at Delhi and that the payment of the instalment towards the sale consideration had also to be made at Delhi. He strongly relied upon Clause 28 of the said agreement which stipulates that the Delhi High Court or Courts subordinate to it alone shall have jurisdiction in all matters arising out of, touching and/or concerning that transaction. Relying on the aforesaid clause, Counsel submitted that the Delhi Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit. He submitted that the parties are competent to place jurisdiction to try a particular case in one Court although cause of action for a particular suit could arise at different places. In support of his contention. Counsel relied upon the ratio of the decision in A. B. C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. A. P. Agencies,sales, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 16 (d), CPC read with proviso thereof alongwith the provisions of Section 20, Civil Procedure Code make it abundantly clear that in the present case the petitioner could file the suit in Delhi Courts also. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel also drew my attention to the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and also to the reliefs sought for in the suit. Counsel also relied upon the ratio of the decisions in Prakash Kaur v. Everest Construction Co. ,reported State Bank of India v. Sanjeev Malik and Others, 1990 0 RLR 506 and in 1996 (2) A. D. 522. He a