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 the Gurgaon Court to take up the suit from the stage at  which it stands transferred and to decide it expeditiously.

The application is resisted by the respondent by filing a  counter. It is contended that the application is not maintainable as it is  misconceived. According to the respondent, in the guise of interim  application, the appellant is seeking review of the judgment of this  Court. Such a prayer was made when the appeal was heard by this  Court, but the prayer was not granted. According to the respondents,  this Court held that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in Delhi  Court and since the subject matter of the suit was immovable property  and the prayer in the plaint related to recovery of possession of such  property, the only Court which had jurisdiction was Gurgaon Court  where the property was situated. In view of the settled legal position,  the Court directed return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court.  According to the respondents, when the plaint will be presented  before Gurgaon Court, it would not be treated as continuation of  proceedings of the Court which had no jurisdiction but a suit would  commence on the day when the plaint would be presented to the  proper Court. Hence, the prayer made by the applicant to direct  Gurgaon Court to try suit from the stage at which it was in Delhi  Court cannot be granted. The application, therefore, deserves to be  dismissed.

A rejoinder is filed by the applicant submitting that in case of  transfer of a suit for want of jurisdiction, the Code provides the  transferee Court to proceed with the suit from the stage at which it has  been transferred. The applicant asserted that proceedings before Delhi  Court were not null and void. Precisely for that reason, at the time of  hearing of Special Leave Petition, this Court allowed the trial Court to  proceed with the suit and the only order passed by the Court was not  to pronounce judgment "until further orders". It was, therefore,  submitted that this is immensely a fit case to exercise inherent powers  under Section 151 of the Code and plenary powers under Article 142  of the Constitution for grant of the prayer of the applicant.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our  opinion, the application is ill-founded and deserves to be dismissed. It  may be stated that in Civil Appeal which was decided by us on  September 26, 2005, we have held that since the dispute related to  immovable property and the prayer was for specific performance of  an agreement of sale of immovable property and recovery of  possession thereof, the relevant provision was Section 16 of the Code.  Under Clause (d) of the said section, only Gurgaon Court had  jurisdiction. We also held that notwithstanding the agreement  between the parties that only Delhi Court had jurisdiction, the said  clause could not operate as Section 20 of the Code could not be  invoked. According to us, Section 20 would apply where two or more  courts had jurisdiction and the parties by an agreement consented that  one of such courts would try the suit. Since Delhi Court had no  jurisdiction, the contention of the defendants was upheld and the  plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to  the proper Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

The learned counsel for the respondents is also right in  submitting that a similar prayer, which is made in the present  application, was sought at the time of hearing of the Appeal, but it  was not granted.

In our opinion, the provisions of Section 24 and/or Section 25  of the Code have no application to the case on hand. The respondents  are right in urging that this is not a case of ’transfer’ of a suit but of  lack of jurisdiction of the Court. Likewise, the provisions of Rule 15  of Order 18 also cannot be pressed in service which covers those  cases where a successor judge deals with the evidence recorded by his  predecessor and proceeds with the suit from the stage at which it was  left by his predecessor.

We may in this connection refer to a decision of this Court in  Amar Chand Inani v. Union of India (1973) 1 SCC 115 : AIR 1973  SC 313. In that case, the plaintiff\027a practising advocate, sustained  serious injuries in a railway accident while travelling by a train. He  instituted a suit for damages in Karnal Court which was then  transferred to Panipat Court. The plaint was, however, returned for  presentation to proper Court since Panipat Court had no jurisdiction to  hear the suit. In pursuance of the said order, the plaint was presented  to Ambala Court. At the time of presentation of the plaint to Ambala  Court, an objection was raised that the suit was barred by limitation.  The question before the Court was as to whether the suit was filed  within the period of limitation. This Court held that since the Karnal  Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it was not a proper  Court. The submission that the suit instituted in Ambala Court after  the plaint was returned from Karnal Court should be deemed to be a  continuation of the suit filed in Karnal Court had been negatived.

Considering the provisions of the Limitation Act and Order 7,  Rule 10 of the Code, the Court stated: "It was, however, argued by Counsel for the appellant  that the suit instituted in the Trial Court by the  presentation of the plaint after it was returned for  presentation to the proper Court was a continuation of  the suit filed in the Karnal Court and, therefore, the suit  filed in Karnal Court must be deemed to have been filed  in the trial Court. We think there is no substance in the  argument, for, when the plaint was returned for  presentation to the proper Court and was presented in  that Court, the suit can be deemed to be instituted in the  proper Court only when the plaint was presented in that  Court. In other words, the suit instituted in the Trial  Court by the presentation of the plaint returned by the  Panipat Court was not a continuation of the suit filed in  the Karnal Court".                             (emphasis supplied)

       Reliance placed on behalf of the applicant on a decision in  Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia & Anr. (1997) 1 SCC 502 does not carry  the case any further. In that case, the suit when filed was within the  jurisdiction of the Court and it was properly entertained. In view of  amendment in the plaint during the pendency of the suit, however, the  plaint was returned for presentation to proper Court taking into  account the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Such is not the  situation here. As we have already held in the appeal, the suit could  not have been instituted in Delhi Court keeping in view the subject  matter which was immovable property and recovery of possession  thereof. Considering all these factors, we had not granted the prayer  made at the time of hearing of the appeal which has been made in this  application. The application, therefore, cannot be allowed and the  prayer cannot be granted now.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

       For the foregoing reasons, the application deserves to be  dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to  costs.