Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Holding that the Courts at Delhi lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court vide impugned order dated September 16, 2013 the plaint has been directed to be returned for being presented to the Court having jurisdiction, which Court has not been identified by the learned Single Judge, but has to be the City Civil Court in Gurgaon, Haryana, for the reason the view taken by the learned Single Judge is that since the decree as per prayer (c) pertaining to the receipt dated August 28, 2009 impinged upon property No.A-119, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Courts at Delhi would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. In passing the impugned order the learned Single Judge has placed emphasis on prayer (c) made in the plaint and has inferred therefrom that the relief prayed directly relates to the determination of a right to or interest in immovable property. The oral plea by the plaintiff/appellant to give up relief (c) has been negated in paragraph 8 of the impugned order and we quote :

“8. Mr.Bawa, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, repeatedly stressed that he was prepared to either give up relief (c) or even amend the plaint to that effect. However, the fact remains that the Court has to take the plaint as it reads and decide the preliminary issue in the context of pleadings as they exist. It is not possible for the Court at this stage to accept any oral prayer of the Plaintiff to drop any of the prayers or to even amend the plaint.”

2. Case of appellant Inder Sharma as per the plaint instituted by him is that he was the owner in possession of property bearing No.A-118, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana and that in August, 2008 Vikas Nagpal, the defendant, expressed a desire to purchase the property from him and to show his bona-fides handed over Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as token money receipt whereof was acknowledged by him in writing on August 28, 2009 at New Delhi at the Branch Office of a company NU-TECH India Ltd. B-14A, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019. As per Inder Sharma the agreed sale consideration was Rs.6,78,13,200/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy Eight Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Two Hundred only) and it was expressly agreed that balance sale consideration in sum of Rs.6,73,13,200/- (Rupees Six Crores Seventy Three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Two Hundred only) would be paid within 30 days because he required money urgently, and thus time was of the essence of the contract. He had needed at least Rs.2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Twenty Five Lakhs only) most urgently because in his capacity as Managing Director of a company he had subscribed to Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) warrants to be converted into equity shares on a preferential basis pursuant to an Extra Ordinary General meeting of the company held on September 30, 2009 entitling him to so do. He pleaded that SEBI Regulation 77, required him to pay Rs.2,25,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Twenty Five Lakhs only) immediately. He pleaded that he was an allottee of an apartment No.907B at a residential complex called Magnolias being developed by Delhi Lease & Finance Ltd. and he had made a request for the allotment to be changed to another apartment being No.708B which request was accepted and Delhi Lease & Finance Ltd. had required him to pay Rs.3,65,77,500.65 (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Five Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Paisa Sixty Five only) towards further sale consideration. He pleaded that repeated requests made by him to Vikas Nagpal to pay the balance sale consideration were not heeded to by him. Making a reference to the property in question being provided as a collateral security to the State Bank of India against credit facility he pleaded that there was no charge created on the property. Pleading further that firstly the receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by him was a pre-co