http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2726 of 2000

PETITIONER:

HARSHAD CHIMANLAL MODI

RESPONDENT:

DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2005

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2726 OF 2000

C.K. Thakker, J.

This interlocutory application is filed by the applicant/

appellant in a disposed of appeal. The applicant was the original

plaintiff who instituted a suit on the Original Side of the High Court

of Delhi for declaration, for specific performance of agreement, for

possession of property and for permanent injunction. The suit was

filed in 1988. Written statement was filed by the defendants-

respondents in 1989 contesting the claim of the plaintiff on merits but

without raising any objection as to jurisdiction of the Court. The

jurisdiction of the Court was ’admitted’. The suit was then transferred

to District Court, Delhi in 1993. In 1997, issues were framed which

did not include issue as to jurisdiction of the Court as it was not

disputed by the defendants. After more than eight years of filing of

the written statement, however, an application was filed by the

defendants under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Code’) seeking an amendment in

the written statement by raising an objection as to jurisdiction of the

Court. It was contended that the suit was for recovery of immovable

property situated in Gurgaon District. Under Section 16 of the Code,

such a suit for recovery of property could only be instituted within the

local limits of whose jurisdiction the property was situated. Since the

property was in Gurgaon, Delhi Court had no jurisdiction. The said

application was allowed in spite of objection by the plaintiff.

On the basis of the amended written statement, an additional

issue was framed by the trial Court as to the jurisdiction of Delhi

Court to entertain and try the suit. After hearing the parties, the trial

Court held that the suit was covered by Clause (d) of the Section 16 of

the Code and Delhi Court had no jurisdiction as the property was

situated at Gurgaon. Accordingly, the plaint was ordered to be

returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper Court. The said

order was confirmed by the High Court as well as by this Court. (See

Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr.; (2005) 7

SCC 791).

In the present application, it is stated by the applicant that when

he approached this Court against the judgment and order of the High

Court of Delhi, notice was issued on December 6, 1999 and status

quo was ordered to be maintained. On April 17, 2000, leave was

granted and the operation of the judgment of the High Court was

stayed. The Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi was allowed

to proceed with the suit. It was, however, stated that the Court would

not deliver judgment ’until further orders’. According to the

applicant, in pursuance of the said order, the trial Court proceeded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

with the suit, pleadings were completed by the parties, evidence was

led and the matter was ready for final arguments and for disposal. It is

further stated that an order was passed by the District Court on April

11, 2005 declaring that the defendants’ evidence was closed but since

the judgment could not be pronounced in the light of direction issued

by this Court on April 17, 2000, the suit was adjourned sine die. This

Court finally decided the appeal and delivered the judgment on

September 26, 2005 confirming the order passed by the trial Court as

well as by the High Court. According to the applicant, now the suit

will have to be tried and decided by the Gurgaon Court. Since 17

years have passed from the institution of the suit and the pleadings are

complete, evidence is recorded and the arguments are over, this Court

may direct t