Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This revision under Section 115 CPC has arisen from order dated 15.9.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit No. 599 of 2005, deciding issue No. 3, relating to territorial jurisdiction and answering the same in negative and also rejecting application No. 22-C filed by the defendant revisionist, praying for rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of Court below.

2. Plaintiff respondent instituted Original Suit No. 599 of 2005 seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant revisionist from allotting and handing over possession of the disputed flat to any other person and also to restore allotment in favour of plaintiff respondent alongwith his possession. Defendant revisionist filed an application 22C under Section 9 read with Section 151 CPC, raising preliminary objection in view of para 39(c) of master brochure as well as para 25 of allotment letter dated 9.7.2003 stating that jurisdiction lies only with Civil Court at Delhi or Delhi High Court, as the case may be. It is this application which has been rejected by Court below. Hence this revision.

3. It is contended that the condition in the master brochure as well as allotment letter constitutes consent of allottee, providing that in respect of dispute, if any, between parties which needs to be resolved through Court, only the Court at Delhi would have jurisdiction, was binding upon plaintiff-respondent and Court below has erred in law in taking otherwise view.

4. Para 39 of master brochure reads as under:

“The following norms will be observed in dealing with Court Cases, if any filed against the AFNHB :

(a) The Registrants or allottee may take recourse to Court only after he or she has exhausted all avenues of redressal.

(b) The Board being a registered Society shall sue and be sued in the name of Director General only. No other Officer of the Board or any Member of the Board of Management shall be a party to any legal proceedings.

(c) All suits and legal proceedings of any kind against the Board shall be instituted in the appropriate Court(s) in Delhi or New Delhi notwithstanding the location of the property, which may be subject-matter of the dispute.

(d) No suits or legal proceedings of any kind shall be instituted against the Board unless a notice in writing has been delivered to the Board stipulating the nature of claim, cause of action, relief sought, name, registration number and address of the person, and a period of two months has expired thereafter.”

5. Para 25 of allotment letter (Annexure 5 to writ petition) reads as under:

In the event of any dispute arising with regard to the terms & conditions of allotment or possession of dwelling unit, the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of District Court at Delhi or t5he High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

6. Plaintiff respondent has filed suit stating that he is an Ex-Seargent of Indian Air Force and submitted an application dated 2.6.2003 for allotment of a flat. He also deposited initial payment of Rs. 50,500/- on 5.6.2003 with defendant revisionist. vide allotment letter dated 9.7.2003, Flat No. Type A Multistoried, area 1250 Sq. ft was allotted on a total price of Rs. 15.95 Lacs. Plaintiff-respondent retired from active service of Indian Air Force on 30.10.1989. Defendants never made any demand for payment of installments or otherwise construction price of flat allotted to him and cancelled allotment by letter dated 29.4.2005. Plaintiff-respondent represented vide letter dated 12.5.2005 and also remitted three demand drafts of Rs. 1,35,000/- with request to revoke cancellation but nothing has happened. Hence a suit for mandatory injunction, directing defendant-revisionist to maintain allotment of disputed flat to Plaintiff-respondent and to allot the same to anybody else.

7. So far as para 25 of allotment letter is concerned, we find that it applies to a dispute relating to terms and conditions of allot