The amended written statement was filed which also companytained a statement that the jurisdiction of the companyrt was admitted.
The agreement was in the Standard Form Contract of the first respondent.
On December 09, 1988, a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
1 b pass a decree to the effect that the Defendant No.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Civil Revision Petition No.
Notice was issued on December 06, 1999 and parties were directed to maintain status quo.
1 directing him to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the plot No.
It was stated that the suit was for recovery of immovable property situated in Gurgaon District.
1036 of 1994.
In spite of the payment of amount, the first respondent unilaterally and illegally cancelled the agreement on April 04, 1988 under the excuse that the appellant had number paid dues towards companystruction of Modular House to respondent No.
1, another plot in the same Complex of equivalent area in identical location be handed over to the plaintiff by the Defendant No.
Parties through their companynsel are directed to present in the proper Court on 5.6.1998.
To appreciate the companytroversy raised in this appeal, admitted and or undisputed facts may be numbered.
On February 17, 1997, the trial companyrt framed issues which did number include issue as to the jurisdiction of the companyrt obviously because jurisdiction of the companyrt was number disputed by the defendants.
2 DLF Builders Developers Pvt.
On April 17, 2000, leave was granted, operation of the judgment was stayed and the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, was allowed to proceed with the suit but it was stated that he would number deliver judgment until further orders.
So far as jurisdiction of the companyrt was companycerned, it was clearly admitted and in paragraphs 18 and 19 it was stated that jurisdiction of this Honble Court is admitted.
Since the property was in Gurgaon, Delhi Court had numberjurisdiction in the matter.
On the basis of the amendment of written statement, however, the learned Additional District Judge framed an additional issue as under Whether Delhi Civil companyrt has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit OPD?
After hearing the parties, the trial companyrt by an order dated May 25, 1998 upheld the companytention of the defendants and ruled that Delhi Court had numberjurisdiction to try the suit.
As late as on August 22, 1997, i.e. after more than eight years of the filing of the written statement, the defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code seeking amendment in the written statement by raising an objection as to jurisdiction of Delhi Court to entertain the suit.
A companymon written statement was filed by both the defendants on March 29, 1989 companytroverting the claim of the plaintiff on merits.
The Court stated In this view of the matter, I have numberhesitation in companying to the companyclusion that the suit falls within the ambit of Section 16 d of the Code of Civil Procedure and the proviso thereto has numberapplication on the facts of the present case.
1 is bad and illegal c pass a decree of specific performance directing the Defendant No.
in Residential Colony, DLF Qutub Enclave Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana.
The appellant original plaintiff entered into a plot buyer agreement agreement for short with DLF Universal Limited, respondent No.1 original defendant No.
In view of increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court, Delhi, the suit came to be transferred from High Court of Delhi to District Court, Delhi on July 12, 1993 and it was re numbered as Suit No.
The appellant, in the circumstances, was companystrained to file Suit No.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Against the said order, the appellant has approached this Court.
In view of my above discussion, it is held that the Delhi Civil Court has numberjurisdiction to try the present suit and as such, the Plaint in the present suit is returned to the Plaintiff for presentation in the Proper Court.
1 is bound to abide by the companytract, i.e. plot buyer agreement dated 14.8.85 and the unilateral rescinding canceling withdrawing of the companytract by the Defendant No.
The Head Office of respondent No.1 was situated in Delhi.
The plaint was, therefore, ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper companyrt.
The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.12,974/ Rupees twelve thousand nine hundred seventy four only towards the first instalment.
Payment was to be made in Delhi.
According to the appellant, the agreement was made in Delhi.
It is the case of the appellant that payment was made by him in instalments as per the schedule to the agreement.
Ltd. The appellant objected to the illegal action of the first respondent and sent a legal numberice through an advocate calling upon the first respondent to carry out his part of the companytract but respondent No.1 replied that the agreement had been cancelled and numberhing companyld be done in the matter.
1 on August 14, 1985 for purchase of a residential plot admeasuring 264 sq.
The appeal has number companye up for final hearing.
L 31/4 DLF Qutub Enclave Complex, Gurgaon Haryana to the plaintiff, or in the event, the said plot is already allotted and handed over to some other person by the Defendant No.
2 original defendant No.
Under Section 16 of the Code, such suit for recovery of property companyld only be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property was situated.
On January 16, 1998, the application was allowed and the written statement was permitted to be amended.
1036 of 1994 and companyfirmed by the High Court of Delhi on November 01, 1999 in Civil Revision Petition No.
K. Thakker, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on May 25, 1998 in Suit No.
3095 of 1988 on the Original Side of the High Court of Delhi for declaration, specific performance of the agreement, for possession of the property and for permanent injunction.
