HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI versus D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 740 · Decided: 14-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI 
v. 
D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR. 
DECEMBER I 4, 2005 
B 
[ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
S.16 read with Order Vil. Rule 10-Suitfor possession of immovable 
C property-Return of plaint for presentation to proper court-Effect on the 
proceedings carried on in the suit meanwhile-Plea that the trial court may 
be directed to take up the suit from the stage at which it stood transferred-
Held, cannot be allowed, since the court while deciding the appeal arising 
out of the order of return of the plaint, did not grant the prayer-It is not 
D a case of transfer of a suit but lack of jurisdiction of the Court. 
Appellant filed a suit in the Delhi High Court, inter alia, for specific 
performance of contract and recovery of possession of the property. Though 
written statement was filed, but no objection as regards jurisdiction of the 
court was raised therein. The said suit was transferred to the District Court 
E in Delhi. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application for amendment of the 
written statement by raising an objection that since the suit was for recovery 
of possession of imnioveable property situated at G urgaon, the Delhi Court 
had no jurisdiction. The trial court ordered return of the plaint for 
presentation to proper court. The High Court as well as the Supreme Court 
F affirmed the order dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff*. Meanwhile in view 
of the interim orders, the trial court proceeded with trial of the suit and the 
matter reached the stage of final arguments and final orders, but as there 
was a direction not to pronounce the judgment, the suit was adjourned sine 
die. 
G 
The plaintiff filed the present application praying that since the 
pleadings are complete, evidence is recorded and the arguments are over, the 
Supreme Court may direct the Gurgaon Court to take up the suit from the 
stage at whicll it stood transferred. 
Rejecting the application, the Court 
H 
740 
HARSHADCHIMANLALMODlv. D.L.F. UNIVERSAL LTD. 
74 J 
HELD: 1.1. The application is ill-founded and deserves to be dismissed. A 
In the civil appeal decided by this Court*, it was 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 of Civil Procedure, 
1908. Under Clause (d) of the said section, only Gurgaon Court had 
jurisdiction. It was also held that notwithstanding the agreement between the B 
parties that only Delhi Court had jurisdictioa, the said clause could not 
operate as Section 20 of the Code could not be invoked. 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 C 
was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court 
(744-B-DI 
*Harshad Chimanlal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 
791, relied on. 
1.2. The provisions of Section 24 and/or Section 25 of the Code have no 
application to the case on hand, as it 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. (744-E-F) 
D 
1.3. As was already held in the appeal, the suit could not have been E 
instituted in Delhi Court keeping in view the subject matter which was 
immovable property and recovery of possession thereof. Considering all these 
factors, this court did not grant 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. (744-F-G) 
Amar Chand lnani v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 115; AIR (1973) 
SC 313, relied on. 
Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia & Anr., f 1997) 1 SCC 502, distinguished. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 3 In Civil Appeal No. 2726 G 
of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated l. l l :99 of the Delhi High Court in 
C.R. No. 506 of 1998. 
Dushyant Dave, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Zubin Pratap and Vikas Mehta for 
the Appellant. 
H 
742 
SUPREME COU~T REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. This interlocutory applica
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.