Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. These appeals which involve similar issues are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The issue that arise for consideration in these appeals is as to whether or not the Delhi Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the respondent. In paragraph 46 of the plaint it was stated thus:

46. That the Corporate office of Defendants No. 1 & 2 and the Registered office of Defendant No. 3 is at Saket, New Delhi and the Defendants carry on business and work for gain at Delhi. The Defendants made the offer to sell the suit premises to the Plaintiff at New Delhi and the Plaintiff accepted the said offer also at New Delhi. The payments were also made by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 at New Delhi. Accordingly, the Agreement was concluded at New Delhi. Further, the Plaintiff is merely seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract dated 16/20.01.2004 for sale concluded between the parties, which relief can be entirely enforced through the personal obedience of the Defendants. thereforee, this Honble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.

3. The aforesaid suit was based on the alleged contract dated 16/20.01.2004 alleging that the commercial property measuring 10,747 sq. ft. (1998.420 sq. mtrs.) on the second floor of the Fortune Global Hotel and Commercial Complex, Gurgaon was sought to be conveyed. In para 8 of the plaint it was stated thus:

8. That after discussions and negotiations Shri Achal Raina, Vice President of Defendant No. 1 sent a written communication dated January 16, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Offer Letter") containing the aforesaid offer to the Plaintiff, in respect of the suit premises. The Offer Letter contained the following terms and conditions:

PRICE : Rs. 4200/- persq. ft.

PAYMENT SCHEDULE :

Immediately on Booking : 10% of the total sale consideration.

By 28.02.2004 : 85% of the total sale consideration.

At the time of notice for possession of the premises: Balance 5% of the total sale consideration.

1. The offer also includes 15 number of Car parking spaces in the basement.

2. Further the above price does not include the cost towards registration/stamp duty, electricity connection, maintenance deposit and other miscellaneous charges for the registration of the said premises.

3. Any delayed payment shall attract an interest @ 18% per annum (compounded quarterly) for the period of delay.

4. The above offer is valid till the close of business hours, i.e., 20th February, 2004.

.4. The appellant, thereforee, has extracted in the aforesaid paragraph, the entire alleged contract which was allegedly created between the respondent and the appellant. In paragraphs 42 and 43 it is stated by the respondent-plaintiff as follows:

42. That since the Defendants have not executed the sale deed or any other document to transfer the right, title and interest in the suit premises in favor of the Plaintiff despite repeated requests from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as such, is left with no other remedy, except for seeking specific performance of the contract dated 16/20.01.2004 concluded between the parties, through the intervention of this Honble Court.

43. That the Plaintiff is also entitled to claim damages from the Defendants on account of the loss suffered due to the delay in conclusion of the sale and the consequent delay in the Plaintiffs plans of expansion and starting a new office at Gurgaon. The delay is still continuing and the exact loss suffered by the Plaintiff can be computed only after the sale has been concluded, hence the plaintiff seeks leave of this Honble Court to sue the Defendants for damages on account of delay at a later date. The Plaintiff along with the plaint is moving an appropriate application under Order 2 Rule 2(3).

5. When the prayer in the plaint is examined minutely, it is crystal clear that in the said plaint the respondent has not prayed for delivery of possession of