A suit for specific performance regarding immovable property must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is located, as per Section 16 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The question arising for consideration in this judgment is whether the plaintiff herein can maintain before Courts in Delhi, the present suit for specific performance with respect to the suit property located in the State of Haryana in view of Section 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) which reads as under :

“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) or 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 gain.”

2. The present suit has been filed seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell (‘ATS’) dated 10.11.2021 and the Addendum dated 16.04.2022 as well as permanent and mandatory injunctions concerning Industrial Land and Building situated on Plot No. 174, measuring 5720.10 sq. mtrs., Sector-4, Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana (‘suit property’).

3. It is stated in paragraph 34 of the plaint that the suit property is in the possession of defendant no. 5 i.e., Indian Bank, Sector-4, Rewari Branch, State of Haryana and in prayer (b), the plaintiff has sought a decree of mandatory injunction against defendant no. 5 for handing over the title documents and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.

4. The territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked based on the averments set out in paragraph 40 of the plaint, which reads as follows:

“40. JURISDICTION

This Hon'ble Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The subject matter agreement/addendum have been executed at Delhi. The prequel MOU 30.10.2021 was also executed at Delhi. The defendant No.1 Bank with whom the suit property is mortgaged is in Delhi. The defendant No. 6, who is also NRI, is also resident of Delhi. The entire negotiations, discussions and finalisation of the Agreement/ Addendum have taken place at Delhi. The mediation proceedings pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court have taken place at New Delhi. Thus the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and defendants are ordinarily the residents of Delhi. In the ATS dated 10.11.2021 as well as the addendum to ATS dated 16.4.2022, the parties have agreed and acknowledged that the jurisdiction shall be Delhi. This Hon'ble Court thus has the territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate the present suit.”

5. The primary relief of specific performance has been sought against defendant no. 2, Ms. Kalpana Verma, the owner/title holder of the suit property.

6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was mortgaged by defendant no. 2 with defendant no. 1, Karnataka Bank, in relation to a loan availed by a company, namely, Carfour Foam Pvt. Ltd. However, through a sanction letter dated 09.12.2021, defendant no. 1 bank proposed a One Time Settlement (‘OTS’) in respect of the aforesaid loan. In order to arrange funds for the OTS, the ATS dated 10.11.2021 and the Addendum dated 16.04.2022 were executed between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 2. Th