A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The plaint of the appellant, who filed suit for mandatory injunction etc. against the respondent herein, has been returned vide orders dated 8.2.2008 by the learned Single Judge on the ground that Delhi court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Challenging that order, present appeal is preferred. Only those necessary facts which have bearing on the issue of territorial jurisdiction need a mention. For the sake of clarity, we maintain the nomenclature of the parties as in the suit. That means hereafter the appellant would be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent No. 1 as the defendant.

.2. The defendant, DLF Limited, has constructed and developed a massive Mall known as “South Point” (defendant No. 2). It is located at DLF City, Phase V, Sector 53, Village Waziarabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Spaces in the said Mall are given to various traders on lease. The plaintiff also agreed to take on lease an area measuring 1,10,000 sq. ft. in the said Mall for a period of nine years @ Rs. 39/-per sq. ft. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in this behalf was signed between the parties on 12.5.2004. This MOU, inter alia, gives the details about the understanding reached between the parties. The defendant was also handed over a cheque of Rs. 1,01,000/- by the plaintiff as token money. This cheque was duly encashed. We may note that at the time when this MOU was entered into, the construction of the Mall was still underway. It was completed sometime in the year 2006. After the completion of the Mall, e-mail dated 5.10.2006 was addressed by

.the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff offering a draft formal lease deed to be executed between the parties. The plaintiff objected to the said draft alleging that some terms of the MOU were not incorporated therein. Request was sent vide e-mail dated 10.10.2006 for incorporation of those terms. It is not necessary to go into the exact nature of dispute and exchange of further e-mails between the parties. Suffice it is to mention that dispute remained about the exact text of the intending agreement because of which lease agreement could not fructify. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were backing out because of boom in the real estate sector and increase in property prices. This led the plaintiff approach this Court by filing the suit, as aforementioned.

3. Along with suit, the plaintiff also filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) seeking interim protection. Order dated 7.12.2007 was passed restraining the defendants from transferring the possession of the area measuring about 1,10,000 sq. fts. in favour of any third party or create any rights therein in favour of anyone contrary to MOU dated 12.5.2004 on the condition of deposit of Rs. 80,00,000/-. The plaintiff deposited that amount in this Court.

4. On receipt of summons in the suit the defendants No. 2 and 3 filed their written statements questioning the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant No. 1 also took the similar plea, albeit in the form of IA No. 14649/2007 filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code praying that the plaint be returned for want of jurisdiction.

.5. The learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the property in question is an immovable property and is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It held that the suit filed by the plaintiff seeks relief of “possession” as well and thus this Court will not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain that suit. The learned Single Judge referred to some case law (which we shall discuss at the appropriate stage) and on that basis, culled out the following principle which would govern the issue of jurisdiction in such cases:

.A perusal of different judgments on the question of jurisdiction shows that in case of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, if