ROHIT KOCHHAR versus VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1289 · Decided: 26-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1289 : 2024 INSC 920
Rohit Kochhar 
v. 
Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors.
(Special Leave Petition(Civil) No(s). 10169-10171 of 2008)
26 November 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect to the suit 
property can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of 
the defendants warranting the application of the proviso to Section 
16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to s.16 – When not 
applicable – Suit for specific performance of the contract in 
respect of the suit property situated in Gurugram, filed in 
the Delhi High Court – Single Judge held that the suit was 
maintainable in view of proviso to s.16 – Appeals filed by 
the defendants were allowed by Division Bench, plaint was 
directed to be returned to the plaintiff to present it before the 
appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit 
for specific performance – Correctness:
Held: No error committed by High Court in passing the impugned 
orders – s.16 deals with territorial jurisdiction of the courts and 
inter alia provides that suits for recovery, partition, foreclosure, for 
determination of any other right or interest in immovable property are 
to be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is 
situate – The proviso to s.16 however, provides 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 whose jurisdiction the property is situate, 
or in the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, or 
carries on business, or personally works for gain – A suit for specific 
performance and delivery of possession is covered under clause 
(d) to s.16 and thus the parties, even by agreement, cannot confer 
territorial jurisdiction on a court within whose territory the subject 
1290
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
matter is not situated – Proviso to s.16 would be applicable to a 
case where the relief sought by the plaintiff can be obtained through 
the personal obedience of the defendant, that is, the defendant has 
not to go out of the jurisdiction of the court at all for the purpose of 
the grant of relief – However, since the present case would require 
the defendants to go to Gurugram for the purpose of execution of 
the sale deed, hence the proviso to s.16 will not be applicable – 
Further, it is clear from the terms of the alleged contract between 
the parties that the transfer of possession of the suit property is 
implicit in the said contract and absence of a specific prayer seeking 
transfer of possession would not have any bearing on the character 
of the suit, which is one covered by s.16(d) – Transfer of Property 
Act, 1882 – s.55. [Paras 13, 18, 21, 33]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.22 – Import of – Discussed. 
[Paras 22-30]
Case Law Cited
Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat and Another [2001] Supp. 3 
SCR 29 : (2001) 7 SCC 698; Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal 
and Others [1982] 3 SCR 94 : (1982) 3 SCR 94; Harshad Chiman 
Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 495 : (2005) 7 
SCC 791; Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute v. Radhu Vithoba Barde, 2024 
INSC 122; Excel Dealcomm (P) Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Co. 
(India) Ltd. [2015] 4 SCR 948 : (2015) 8 SCC 219 – referred to.
P.M.A. Velliappa Chettiar v. Saha Govinda Doss AIR 1929 Mad 
721 – referred to.
Messrs. Moolji Jaitha and Co. v. Khandesh Spinning and Weaving 
Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1950 FC 83 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1980; Specific Relief Act, 1963
List of Keywords
Suit for specific performance; Suit property situated in Gurgaon/
Gurugram, Suit filed in Delhi High Court; Territorial jurisdiction; 
To try the suit; Local limits; Court within whose jurisdiction the 
property is situate, Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant 
actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally 
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1291
Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors.
works for gain; Personal obedience of the defendants; Delivery of 
possession; Court within whose territory the subject matter is not 
situated; Transfer of possession of the suit property; Absence of 
specific prayer seeking transfer of possession; Charac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.