S.L. BHAYANA, J.

1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the objection raised by learned senior counsel for the defendant on the issue of maintainability of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff has preferred the present suit, inter alia, praying for relief by way of a permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining the respondent from creating any hindrance or disrupting or from interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the commercial flat bearing No.23, Ground Floor, measuring 1368 sq. ft. situated at the commercial complex known as Global Foyer, (formerly known as “Cityscape”).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that as per commercial space buyer’s agreement dated 11/10/2006 defendant had to comply with certain terms and conditions prior to entering into and execution of a proper conveyance deed. Plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration, which was duly accepted and acknowledged by the defendant and in pursuance thereof, the defendant had executed a conveyance deed dated 23/12/2008 duly registered with Sub Registrar of Gurgaon.

4. Defendant vide a letter of possession dated 23/12/2008 had also handed over the possession of above mentioned commercial unit however defendant had failed to measure and give the actual area provided in the agreement dated 11/10/2006 and further demarcate or provide one car parking space in the basement area of the said building.

5. Defendant has been creating hindrance, impediments even in the free ingress and egress of the petitioner or his employees to the premises, which is in gross violation of Clause 6 of the conveyance deed dated 23/12/2008.

6. On the other hand, while opposing the present application, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant, at the outset has raised objections of jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter as the suit property is situated in Gurgoan, Haryana. Further conveyance deed is also executed and registered in Gurgoan.

8. Section 16(d) of CPC bars this suit to be filed in Delhi as cause of action if any had arisen in Gurgoan. Other suits pertaining to this suit property were also filed in Gurgoan only.

9. To capitalise her arguments learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon following judgments:

a. Harshad Chiman Lalmodi VS DLF Universal And Anr. AIR2005SC 4446

b. Shri Surendra Prasad Sinha Vs Smt. Bibha Sinha and Ors., IA No.14160/08 in CS(OS) 946/2007 decided on 28/7/2009 by this Court.

c. Pantaloon Retail India Ltd Vs DLF Limited and Ors, 155 (2008) DLT 642.

10. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Since issue of jurisdiction was raised in context of clause (d) of Sec 16 of CPC, it would be apposite to reproduce the same.

“16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate. 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 for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant, may where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gai